Re: [tlug] Ghosted?

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <steve@example.com>]

Curt J. Sampson writes:
 > On 2025-07-30 17:02 +0900 (Wed), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > > The only problem with this is that there are very smart people
 > > who can't explain worth a damn, while the code speaks for itself.
 > > Although I imagine if "you listen very hard" you as interviewer
 > > can often work around that.
 > 
 > Really? If the code speaks for itself that would seem to indicate
 > that they _can_ explain worth (more than) a damn.

Depends on the problem solved by the code.

 > Writing good code and talking with other developers in English are
 > really about the same thing: being able to communicate effectively.

Sure, but that has very little to do with what I wrote.  Some people
are polyglots, and can explain in any language they have in common
with their interlocutor.  Others are facile in only one.  This is
really common in economics.  Some people can translate formal economic
language into a mathematical model, prove important theorems with it,
and regurgitate more formal language, but be completely incapable of
writing a paragraph-length abstract that can interest a non-
mathematical economist.

 > As Dijkstra said, "Besides a mathematical inclination, an
 > exceptionally good mastery of one's native tongue is the most vital
 > asset of a competent programmer." (From the famous EWD498.[1])

I don't disagree about the vitality of such an asset.  But I see
no evidence in the real world that that there are more competent
programmers than competent economists in that sense.  "Exceptionally
good mastery" is, after all, by definition, exceptional.


-- 
GNU Mailman consultant (installation, migration, customization)
Sirius Open Source    https://www.siriusopensource.com/
Software systems consulting in Europe, North America, and Japan