Computer programming as a self-motivated hobby is not unique in this. Many electrical engineers started playing with electronics as kids (e.g. disassembling radios, wiring up homemade amps, etc). Many mathematicians "play" with math as kids before they go to college and get a teaching/research position. (E.g. Andrew Wiles was 10 when he was captivated by Fermat's Last Theorem.) Many biologists and zoologists when they were kids had a keen interest in nature and animals (beyond the typical children's "dinosaurs are cool" stage). Same for astronomy.
No one expects a chemical engineering 1st year student to have mastered organic chemistry already. Just as no one expects a 1st year mechanical engineering student to thoroughly understand rigid body dynamics at age 10.
Yea maybe they built an RC plane or did some home experiments, but if anyone is doing these things at a young age they are clearly far above their peers.
> Andrew Wiles
Example here-this man is extremely intelligent, it's like using Einstein as an example that anyone can be a genius physicist that changes the world. No, they can't.
We need to just call it what it is: arrogance and gating. "If you didn't do what I did, you must certainly not be any good." Which is an absolute shame
Then you are not aware of the toxic comments from your peers who agree with you.
To recap...
Group 1: programming-is-just-a-job -- the majority -- The programmers who want to compartmentalize their programming strictly to 40-hours work week so they can have a life outside of computers. Programming is just a means to an end. Programming is just the paycheck that feeds my family. Great! There's nothing wrong with you! You outnumber the programmers who view it as an artistic endeavor and self-actualization.
Group 2: programming-is-my-vocation -- the minority -- The programmers who got into as kids and find joy in side projects after hours & the weekends.
It's not enough for these 2 groups to peacefully coexist. It's also not enough that Group 1 outnumbers Group 2. It's also not enough that most cog-in-wheel corporate programming jobs don't even value Group 2's enthusiasm for programming.
No, Group 1 is not satisfied with the above advantages. Group 1 is very annoyed if Group 2 programmers prefer working with other Group 2 programmers. G1 derides G2 as psychologically defective or unbalanced. E.g see HN poster (gyardley)[1] describing them as an "obsessive wretch" and "not an asset". Toxic indeed.
Also This mindset eventually can backfire on even your group 2 people because life happens and just because you have the free time, energy and motivation today to work on projects outside of work doesn't mean you will later when you have a family or health issues or any of the myriad other things that can come up.
Well, G2 people have an affinity for other G2 people. That's human nature! That's not toxic. Look at the various reasons given by G2 posters in this thread: they enjoy a work environment with other G2 people. Just as one can prefer having a comfortable chair or closed office, a G2 can state honestly that they would be happier with other G2 colleagues. Just because that has an effect of G1 not getting hired does not mean it's toxic.
The analogy I like to use is a music band. If they're looking for a guitarist who's passionate about his instrument and music, the guitarist-just-a-job who has apathy about the music will not get invited to join the band. Maybe the apathetic guitarist can technically strum a C chord as well as the passionate guitarist. That's not enough. The band having a preference for the passionate guitarist is not being toxic.
Yes, for many G2 programmers who started as kids... programming/playing with the computer is a very similar intellectual high to a teenager exploring a guitar. Programming feels like fun artistic expression and not "work" or a "job". I think many G1 programmers really don't understand that. If they could view G2 programmers as band musicians, maybe they would have more empathy for the passionate programmers having a preference for like-minded people.
I'm not going to think of programmers as musicians because they're not. They are employees of whatever company. They are there to do a job. It's great that you want to work with like minded people but if that desire means that qualified G1 people can't get hired at your company that's a problem. If your desire means that g1 people can't get promoted that's a problem.
As a thought experiment replace like-minded people, with people of the same race. Or people of the same gender. Or people of the same religion. Do you see the problem now? A mindset that excludes some large percentage of people based on arbitrary standards that has nothing to do with their ability to do a job is always going to be problematic.
Side note if you lead with "looking for passionate" you're already misconstruing the issue, because what a company should be looking for is "able to do the job to whatever standard we've set"
Nobody in this thread has said this. Maybe your misunderstanding of the other side is part of your frustration on this topic?
Some have said that the self-taught programmers were better. Some have said passionate programmers were more driven to stay relevant in a changing field. Some have said they learn more from coworkers that developed interest in programming outside of college and work.
You may disagree with all 3 of those statements but none them are about dispassionate programmers not being able to succeed.
>It's an issue when you're desire pushes all the G1 people out of the work place.
This has never happened. In fact, the opposite has happened. G1 is the overwhelming norm at most businesses. To repeat -- most programmers do not view coding as a vocation. G1 programmers already fill most jobs slots.
The idea that the minority of G2 programmers want a work environment with other G2s and this is hurting G1?!? That is a complaint that's way out of proportion to reality. Literally.
Also, I'm not sure why hiring heuristics that negatively affect G1 somehow has a higher moral standing than heuristics that negatively affect G2 programmers. What about the opposite situation? E.g. G1 people say being well-balanced with non-programming activities helps them be a "better programmer". Great! Let that belief be a guide and don't hire G2 programmers since their excessive interests in computers actually makes you believe they perform worse. They are not assets. (See my previous cite to HN thread for example of this.) In those cases, G1 wins over G2 in getting the job.
>They are employees of whatever company. They are there to do a job.
The founders and many programmers would like the daily effort to be "more than a job" if possible. Sometimes, that's not possible (e.g. Walmart cashier). However, with programming, some do try to optimize for a better work environment.
>with people of the same race. Or people of the same gender. Or people of the same religion. Do you see the problem now?
Those race/gender examples weaken your argument. Having a preference for people with similar intellectual dispositions in programming is very aligned with Martin Luther King's "not being judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
>arbitrary standards that has nothing to do with their ability to do a job
Then this discussion has no resolution because in this thread, many have written about experiencing the opposite. Instead of it being an "arbitrary standard", it's been a positive correlation with performance on the job.
>what a company should be looking for is "able to do the job to whatever standard we've set"
Ok, many programmers in this thread said they prefer colleagues who enjoy computers+programming as outside interests. That's the standard that's been set. Many companies want to attract those programmers by hiring G2.
Neither ghaff nor I wrote anything about kids "mastering" the STEM topics before college or the first job. Therefore, that higher standard stated by you is a strawman.
I thought ghaff was talking about STEM side projects which is certainly something within the abilities of teenagers without mastery of programming. That's what my reply to him/her was about and how "playing with science" is not unique to programming.
No one would be expected to do meet those high standards, as you say. No one would be expected to be experts in basic chemistry by their first year of college.
Yet in this very post, there are countless examples of people saying the best programmers were the ones that knew it all before college, who didn't need college, who put in the time to learn before college, etc.
No other field is this expected. That's the point.
Playing with science and doing small little cute fun experiments is a lot different than me teaching myself productive front end development at age 16. I don't expect other 16 year olds overall to do as I did. Nor do I judge people if they didn't.
Nobody in this thread has said that programmers should "know it all" before college. You're injecting conditions and standards (like "mastery") that no poster actually wrote.
>No other field is this expected. That's the point.
This isn't true. You can see coaching advice for electrical engineers to update their resume with any DIY (do-it-yourself) electronics projects that would demonstrate self-motivation, passion, etc to potential employers. In that respect, it's not much different than computer programming. Do electrical engineers get jobs without any personal side projects?!? Yes, of course. Same as computer science -- many programmers get jobs without side projects.
In both scenarios, it isn't absolutely necessary but it's a way to stand out from the crowd.
> As a mechanical engineering major undergrad, I can assure you that I had no particular experience in the area prior to college.
I'd say this is true of most people entering college. Hence we have introductory courses to learn there.
It's a shame that so many people on here and elsewhere simply want to discourage people from following an interest simply because they discovered it later.