Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 24, 2013 at 14:40 history edited gnat CC BY-SA 3.0
summary for the referenced link // http://meta.stackoverflow.com/tags/link-only-answers/info
May 12, 2011 at 15:07 comment added Corbin March Worth mentioning that the competency matrix measures potential, not excellence. I've worked with too many really smart developers that weren't productive. Some of them were burnt out, some wouldn't stoop to problems that were below them, and some were just lazy. Being brilliant and having a lot of experience doesn't mean you'll make a substantial contribution. Good programmers contribute.
Feb 24, 2011 at 1:30 vote accept Alex Angas
Feb 23, 2011 at 11:05 comment added user1249 Perhaps wee need a "programmer measurement"-measurement?
Feb 23, 2011 at 6:11 comment added Jerry Coffin @Johathan Khoo: I'm not sure it has much (if anything) to qualify greatness either. I see no spots for "invented an algorithm that's now in wide use", or "wrote [or contributed to, or even proofread] a widely recognized reference book", or anything on that order.
Feb 23, 2011 at 6:02 comment added J.K. @Jerry: Completely true. This is merely the equivalent of an IQ measuring intelligence (i.e. it'll effectively distinguish between the great and the dismal programmers, but wouldn't be accurate for those lying in the middle.
Feb 23, 2011 at 5:47 comment added Jerry Coffin ...notable, but definitely neither great nor the last word. Just for one point, it places far too much emphasis on breadth of knowledge, and far too little on depth. For another, its "cumulative" requirement is ridiculous, at least in places. Does he honestly believe I'm not even a "level 0" programmer because I've never owned a single "21 days" or "24 hours" or "for dummies" book? Having studied Knuth, Wirth, K&R, etc., before those were being published renders me ignorant and incompetent? What nonsense!
Feb 23, 2011 at 5:19 history answered J.K. CC BY-SA 2.5