> This brings me to the problem I have with certification. Although
> the studying I would need to do to get certified in Perl would let
> me know about more parts of the language, there is no guarantee I
> would end up being a better programmer. Nor would certification
> tell a prospective employer all that much about my skills.
>
> The one thing that certification might tell someone is that I have
> a passing familiarity with all parts of Perl. Thus, if I needed
> to read someone else's Perl code, I wouldn't need to consult the
> Camel quite so often. I'm not sure, however, that this is a good
> enough reason to institute standards which are know in advance are
> likely to be misleading. ("It ain't what you don't know that will
> hurt you as much as the stuff you do know that's wrong.")
this is exactly what people want the certification for. if you are
going to hire a "guru" to hack a Great Program then you'll interview
them carefully. by the time you're done it'll be clear whether they
know at least what you do.
contrast this to hiring a script monkey for q&d work, contract
hackers for a CGI project or a junior coder to help maintain your
existing pile of... er, stuff.
the issue for perl is that enough people know what "C" is that
they feel warm'n fuzzy about hiring junior people who have taken
C-101 in college. they don't feel the same for perl.
this effects us as "advocates" since lack of a benchmark for skill
in perl is a stumbling block to getting it used.
--
Steven Lembark 2930 W. Palmer St.
Chicago, IL 60647
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 800-762-1582
