![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
programming
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
gregbo asked a question in a comment that I decided
to bump up to the top level:
You've written a lot about how you don't think you'd excel at programming if you went back to it ... why do you feel that way? What do you think is the difference between someone who excels at programming and someone who doesn't? Is it a "time spent" issue ... could you make yourself better at programming if you spent more time on it? Would that perhaps make you unhappy, because you couldn't spend more time doing other things you enjoyed more?
First, a bit of background for the folks who don't know this already. My degree is in tech writing with a strong concentration in CS (I faked a minor), which (along with having worked as a TA for the relevant professor) got me my first job as half tech writer, half programmer. (Small companies can be like that.) Eventually, for bureaucratic reasons, I had to choose one, and I chose programmer. After several years (not all at that company) I found, during a job hunt, that my skill set was no longer interesting for programming jobs, and I ended up back in tech writing. That first job, by pure chance, was writing API documentation for programmers, and I began to carve out my niche. (I'd like to thank DARPA for cancelling the project I was working on at just the right time. :-) )
Now I think I actually do have a lot of the necessary clues to be a decent programmer. I'm not always up on the details of language or specific technologies -- I could not, for example, write a multi-threaded server without some assistance -- but I understand principles and I think I learn reasonably quickly. I feel validated by the fact that coworkers who are programmers sometimes come to me for what turns out to be interface-design advice and that I don't come off sounding like a complete doofus in those conversations (most of the time, anyway :-) ). If I set my mind to it, I could probably turn myself into a competent mid-level programmer.
But there are some caveats. As you hinted at, one is just plain time in field. I'd have to spend the time getting back in shape, getting current (in some detail) on the developments of the last decade+, and just plain practicing a lot. That time has to come from somewhere. Another issue is that, even though tech writers earn less than programmers, tech writers of my calibur earn more (I suspect) than programmers of my calibur, if you know what I mean. Am I willing to take a pay cut to change careers? Further, as I think I commented earlier, the field is very crowded; what distinguishes this mid-level programmer from all the others?
Becoming a skilled high-level programmer would involve a lot more work than what I've described. I wouldn't see a point in going back to programming unless I thought I could reach that level, but -- as the previous paragraph illustrates -- I don't have the passion that's needed to actually work toward that goal. (If I did, matters of time and money would be trivial speed-bumps.) I note that even when I was a programmer -- and yes, I enjoyed it -- I somehow didn't stay on top of it, didn't reach for the top. Sure, I'm older and wiser now than I was then; I know that you really do have to stay on top before you see your skills rotting. But even knowing that, I don't see myself doing it in that field. That I haven't been doing any for-fun programming in my spare time for the last decade should tell us something about my priorities.
I was (and am, IMO) a good interface designer and a decent coder. (I think, for my time, I was actually a little better than average in my favorite language, which was LISP. I really understood the idioms and design patterns. Working, in a minor way, on the language spec may have helped that.) But I never tackled anything really big architecturally, and I suspect that is not where my strengths are. And that's one of the things a top-notch programmer needs to be good at.
Bottom line: while I kind of ended up back in tech writing by accident, it was the best thing I could have done. I've built a specialization that allows me to combine the programming skills I do have with my strong tech-writing skills. When I'm working for an enlightened company (like I am now), I can still put those programming skills to use in ways that help the company even if I'm not writing product code. I influence the code (and write utilities and examples), and that is a contribution. I'm pretty proud of both parts of that -- the code contributions and the actual writing -- and that pride, in turn, helps sustain my passion for the job. And I think no matter what you do, to excel you need to be passionate about it.
What makes a top-notch programmer? Passion (as noted), ability to see the big picture and all the niggling details, ability to design interfaces that are consistent and only as complex as they need to be (and the ability to know how complex that really is), ability to generalize without over-generalizing, ability to write clean, correct code, and a second-nature tendency to look at existing designs, interfaces, and code with a fresh eye on an ongoing basis, constantly evaluating how well it meets evolving needs.
no subject
I find it refreshing to see that you have found a way to combine it with other talents, and you enjoy what you are doing. I'm working on learning scientific writing. It is a lot more difficult than I had thought.
no subject
I'm working on learning scientific writing. It is a lot more difficult than I had thought.
I take it that you're coming from a science background and trying to learn that style of writing? (As opposed to coming from a writing background and trying to learn the science side.) I suspect that there are several different styles of scientific writing, actually -- the articles in Science will have a different style than the ones in JAMA -- and I wonder if that would pose a problem for someone trying to break in. What kinds of difficulties are you having? You mentioned in your journal a need to cite everything; that may be more a function of academic journals than other types of writing.
no subject
While we are not currently trying to publish in the top-level journals, the various focuses of the journals must be taken into consideration when deciding what journal to publish in and what style to assume while writing. Many times, the research that is being presented delineates which journals are considered. The style changes frequently.
My main problem now is that the articles I have been involved in publishing before were in physical chemistry, and my role in the actual writing was limited to editing. Now I am charged with actually writing the paper, and that is the main difficulty that I am dealing with right now. Editing what others have written is much easier than coming up with the original composition. But it is a good experience for me. If you have any suggestions, I appreciate them from any source.
no subject
no subject