Related, sort of, to this thread, I had this idea (but I'm sure that other
people also had this idea as well) - of studying 'talented' programmers -
you know, those 'stars' in the 'start-up' who ruthlessly code for hours on
end, providing solutions to problems with apparent (and enviable) ease. I
can see that programmers vary in performance, but to what degree? (thinking
about it, I think it was a comment by Hank Kaheny in the Payne, Green et.
al. edited book that started me off...
Perhaps by studying talented programmers and 'scientifically' studying their
cognitive capacities of various forms, we could begin to get a better
picture of 'what' faculties make a these 'good' programmers. Of course,
choosing these talented programmers is a whole other issues - and maybe the
only way to do this would be through 'peer reviews'. And a study of
'cognitive capacities' may necessitate the evil of psychometrics.
> Given a model of how people understand code I'm sure it would be possible
to derive some useful guidelines.
And looking at talented programmers is a way to substantiate and explore the
development of existing models... and, I agree, can help to ultimately
provide guidelines. But, of course, perceived 'talent' can come from years
of hard-won programming knowledge.
Views/opinions on this?
Cheers
Chris
