Re: Readability part II - comments

From	Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Readability part II - comments
Date	2015-04-16 16:40 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<87oamo9j3v.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <cp9fk0Ffnp3U4@mid.individual.net> <mgo3gh$2mp$1@dont-email.me> <mgo57f$85h$1@dont-email.me> <mgo5p7$9lt$1@dont-email.me> <9fc495bc-01ad-4825-8549-5fbc183251c8@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:

> On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 12:19:06 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
>> 
>> > If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>>  > be in big trouble.
>> 
>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought, 
>> isn't it?
>> 
> It's generally recognised that people with English Literature degrees make good
> programmers. Even if I say it myself.

I think that's a bit of an urban myth.  I've heard it in many variations
-- English lit. students, classicists, musicians and so on, and I think
that all variations are rather over-stated, at least in the narrow way
the issue is often presented.

I taught, for several years, a programming course to a largeish and
diverse class of postgraduates.  The came with a very wide range of
degrees, so I have some useful experience to draw on and I was looking
forward to have this idea confirmed, but I can't say it was.  Whilst
students with such backgrounds did often do well, students with a more
obvious fit in their degree inevitably did well.

I think the myth comes from people being surprised when students with
what might be considered mismatched backgrounds do well (as indeed they
certainly can) or, perhaps, from some other comparison -- maybe with
students with degrees in subject Y (substitute your favourite target of
derision here).

Of course the ease with which someone learns to program on a course is
not the same as making a good programmer, but the myth is often
presented that way in universities: "so and so will do well in your
course, because they have a first in classics" (etc.).

-- 
Ben.

Thread

Readability part II - comments Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:48 -0700
  Re: Readability part II - comments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 10:42 +0200
  Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-16 22:01 +1200
    Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 11:40 +0100
      Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 07:09 -0400
        Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 12:18 +0100
          Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 07:36 -0400
            Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 12:43 +0100
              Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 08:00 -0400
                Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 13:21 +0100
                Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 10:54 -0400
                Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 16:45 +0100
                Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 18:00 +0000
          Re: Readability part II - comments Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 04:52 -0700
            Re: Readability part II - comments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-16 16:40 +0100
              Re: Readability part II - comments Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-18 03:33 -0700
            Re: Readability part II - comments Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-04-16 21:10 -0500
      Re: Readability part II - comments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-16 17:20 +0100
        Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 17:53 +0100
      Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 17:34 +0000
        Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 19:15 +0100
          Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 18:25 +0000
    Re: Readability part II - comments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 12:45 +0200
    Re: Readability part II - comments Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-16 17:31 +0000
      Re: Readability part II - comments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 10:48 +0200
        Re: Readability part II - comments Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-18 06:35 +0000
          Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-18 19:47 +1200
            Re: Readability part II - comments Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-18 12:54 +0000
              Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-19 08:43 +1200
                Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-19 12:36 +1200
                Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-20 13:58 +0000
                Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-20 21:02 +0000
                Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-20 23:38 +0000
                Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-21 01:12 +0000
                Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-21 16:39 +1200
    Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-18 14:21 -0400
  Re: Readability part II - comments August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 19:18 +0200
    Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-17 16:16 +0000
  Re: Readability part II - comments John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 09:19 -0700
    Re: Readability part II - comments asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-20 11:15 -0700
  Re: Readability part II - comments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 11:37 -0700
    Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 02:02 +0000
      Re: Readability part II - comments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 09:48 -0700
  Re: Readability part II - comments Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-21 12:40 -0700
    Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-21 21:24 +0000
      Re: Readability part II - comments Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-23 21:57 -0700
  Re: Readability part II - comments "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 09:14 +0200

csiph-web