I'm reading Coders at Work by Peter Seibel, and many a time it has been mentioned that programmers who can't write generally make poor programmers - it's been claimed by Douglas Crockford, Joshua Bloch, Joe Armstrong, Dijkstra (and I've only read half the book).
What's your view of this? Is an inability to express yourself in writing in a natural language such as English a hindrance of writing good code?
There's much more to programming than 'writing code'. A big part of being a successful programmer involves communication; Being able to connect with customers, understand their needs, translate them into the technical realm, express them in code, and then explain the result back to the customers.
Programmers who have a hard time expressing themselves clearly in writing may not be able to communicate well in general, whereas those who have a good grasp of language and writing can generally translate those skills to the code they write.
I think being unable to write well, and thus communicate well, will keep one from being a very good programmer.
As Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson (of 37signals) say in their book Rework:
If you're trying to decide among a few people to fill a position, hire the best writer.
Being a good writer is about more than writing. Clear writing is a sign of clear thinking. Great writers know how to communicate.
I think if we examine the question, we obtain the answer directly:
Is an inability to express yourself in writing in a natural language such as English a hindrance of writing good code?
What does it actually mean to write good code?
Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.
- Abelson & Sussman, Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
It means to express yourself clearly, concisely, correctly and elegantly writing in a programming language.
The only difference between expressing yourself skillfully in English or a programming language is that English is far more forgiving.
I don't think it's a major hindrance for a code monkey (I am assuming a certain basic level/ability to express one's self in their native language). However I do think it can quickly become a major hindrance as you (the developer) has to begin to better articulate designs/arch/plans to a non-technical audience. In my experience getting something across to someone else who is roughly on the same technical level as myself is my easier and takes considerably less (natural) language skills then it does to articulate something to a client and/or manager. At the same token even when it's a technical audience as the subject matter becomes less concrete the person who is writing about it (or talking for that matter) has to be fairly articulate.
The thing is, coding is also a communication skill. Jack Ganssle in his Embedded Muse e-newsletter recently quoted Doug Abbott:
When you write a program, what you’re really doing is communicating to another human what it is you want the computer to do. Programming is about communication, just like any other form of writing. So yes, computer science students should be exposed to good writing. But since there’s so precious little of it in computer science, maybe they just need some basic creative writing classes.
Programmers who don’t know how to write prose probably don’t know how to write code, either.
More on this interesting article:
That depends on what you mean by "good code".
If you mean code that just works, there is hardly any relation between being able to communicate with humans and being able to communicate with computers.
If you mean code that works, is maintainable, and clearly expresses the intention of the code, there is absolutely a relation between writing good code and writing in a language solely intended for humans.
Although you wouldn't need all the different skills required to be a good writer for writing understandable code, there are still some of the elements that have to be there, as both will be read by humans. In some ways it's even harder to write good code, as it should describe the intention with the code, while not using constructs that would perform badly while executed by the computer.
This is altogether anecdotal, but:
One of the best "rock star" programmers I've ever worked with was a very poor writer. And when I say "very poor", I mean the type that came across like he was either extremely drunk, or barely literate - when you saw his emails. Typos, lack of punctuation, difficulty in expressing ideas clearly, and common spelling mistakes ("their/they're" and such) all abounded - almost excruciatingly at times. Reading some of his emails - I would have been worried about him emailing clients directly (we didn't need to do that in that company) - because it would make the company look bad!
Still, he was a super star programmer. An order of magnitude more productive and switched on than average.
I'm not sure what to make of it. I've seen this several times with different people. Some just don't seem to have a knack for sitting down and writing things out. And often it doesn't seem to affect their talents in other areas (even relatively seemingly similar, "knowledge work" talents, such as programming). You'd think it would be connected, but I've seen several living examples like this where it wasn't. Though I guess it's quite possible that they are "exceptions who prove the rule" - I probably just never thought to notice the bad writers who aren't programmers, and the good writers who are.
If they can't write well, how can they convince you that they are good programmers?
I think it is very important for a programmer to be able to communicate well, both with spoken and written language. The ability to translate an idea into words is a prerequisite to writing code.
Whether we are communicating with a computer or a person we have to put words into an order that makes sense following rules of grammar. We have to either pronounce the words correctly or spell them correctly in order for the other side of the conversation to understand them. Computers will throw syntax errors, coworkers will either say "WHAT?" or discount what is being said as inane babbling or worse, an irritating distraction.
I have strongly discouraged hiring candidates because they couldn't complete a thought or stay on a subject. One person was hired by our boss anyway, and turned out to be unable to deliver a simple assignment on time because he was distracted by whatever bright and shiny new technology or toy caught his eye.
So, yes, it is important that programmers be able to communicate well. If they can't effectively communicate with a human they can't do it with a computer.
Does someone unable to express precisely a system organisation or an idea be able by writing it would be able to write code - that are precise instructions - correctly interpreted by (very) dumb computer?
Poor writers make poor writers, and nothing else. Poor writing skill does not mean they can't communicate at all, but they just can't write or express very well. Of course anyone can say communication skill is important and crucial in company and so on and so forth, but that doesn't mean a programmer with poor communication skill can't get the job done nicely. The programming and writing are art, but of completely different kind. Writing is about how to make some other human understand what you are saying and/or act accordingly, but programming is not making computer understand your requirement, because no computer will understand any user requirement (at least within 100 years from now IMO). The programming is about how to translate the requirement to the programming language, and that's why writing skill is not so related.
Absolutely NOT!
A good writer is nothing more than a good writer. Ask a good writer to describe the concept of a database to a non-technical person. What do you think you will get...?
A good writer, writes. A good programer writes good code.
I was going to go on and on but I'd rather spend my time answering other posts. I pretty much think you guys know where I stand on this issue.
