Future(s) for D.

[Chris via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 19:01:08 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> Chris wrote:
> "This already started in the 1990ies and got worse and worse, 
> this business of looking for the "perfect" candidate. A lot of 
> skills can be acquired in the first weeks (or months, 
> depending). It's better to train someone who's intelligent and 
> innovative than someone who's worked with all IDEs and build 
> systems, but is fairly un-innovative (problem => for loop)."
>
> I agree with you, although I don't know how many others would.  
> And not all people are equally gifted in picking things up - 
> it's ability, but also character since when many people get to 
> a certain level of accomplishment they get addicted to the 
> feeling of comfort and would rather die than truly push 
> themselves when they don't know how it will turn out.
>
> On Tuesday, 23 June 2015 at 18:15:47 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>>> For many programmers, programming is just a job, not more. 
>>> They don't program in their spare time and are not really 
>>> interested in programming languages as you are.
>>
>> that people called "code monkeys", not "programmers". it's 
>> simply impossible to be a programmer without a passion to 
>> learn things. not 'cause "well, if i learn XYZ i will be 
>> promoted to better job and will get more money", but 'cause 
>> "hey, that's *interesting*! i may never use that in my job 
>> (this is usually wrong), but it's so interesting that i can't 
>> pass it by!"
>>
>> code monkeys are good when there is a need in writing 
>> boilerplate code, but they are bad for solving problems. not 
>> necessarily 'cause they're dumb, they simply not interested in 
>> problem solving.
>
> Yes - the intriguing thing is that this trend has gone so far 
> that good people and mediocre people are the same price if they 
> look similar on paper (from what I have seen).  In fact you may 
> be able to hire someone good for less than someone mediocre 
> since they are less tolerant of a bad working environment and 
> want to work on something that inspires them (whereas the 
> average person lacks imagination to see what might come out of 
> the ordinary-looking seeds of today) .  As an entrepreneur, 
> this is one of the biggest arbitrages for many years, I think - 
> provided you are able to tell good from mediocre (or to put it 
> charitably, top notch from merely solid).
>
> https://www.quora.com/Why-does-D-E-Shaw-pay-young-Harvard-and-MIT-graduates-over-200-000-per-year-right-out-of-college/answer/Laeeth-Isharc
>
> This isn't technology specific, but it fits with what I have 
> heard from talking to people who are in that very specific 
> field.
>  I think that's what the Quora guys mean when they talk of 10x 
> programmers, but it's not at all the description or way of 
> thinking I would apply, since obviously it puts the emphasis on 
> measuring what is not so easy to measure.
>
> At my (now defunct - a different story) previous startup fund, 
> we had 1200 applications for 2 junior jobs - that's a lot, even 
> limiting it to the serious candidates.  And they all look great 
> on paper, and one couldn't possibly even call them all.  (For 
> this role, I was more concerned about missing someone amazing 
> than making the wrong hire - not the normal corporate 
> priorities).
>
> So I wrote an Oxbridge style applied economics open-ended 
> question.  Most of the perfect candidates on paper just 
> regurgitated what they read in the FT; a few didn't and 
> actually thought about it.  And the girl that got the job spent 
> 45 hours writing her paper, which was more useful than the 
> stuff you would get from a 40 year old seasoned guy.  No way 
> would we have found her had we had an HR department (or rather 
> had we let HR 'help' us).
>
> For technology, it's different, but I think the same way of 
> thinking may prove useful.  And if/when I need a tech guy to 
> help me, it's a nobrainer to ask here because of the quality of 
> the people.  Although that is not why I am here.

Good on you for doing that. I know from my own experience that 
people who are intelligent and inspired (i.e. willing to think 
and move things forward) can get up to speed very fast and make 
later valuable contributions to a team/project. I've found that 
this usually happens in small businesses or within small projects 
where resources are very limited and there is no HR involved.

That said, there is of course the element of established and 
complacent people trying to keep out the intelligent and inspired 
crowd, because they think they are a threat to them, you know, 
those who make a career out of brown-nosing.