re: The Dark Side Of The Magic VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: Unfortunately, I think you both missed my point, and specifically the conditional on my statement about being in the wrong field. It is possible t...

I'm not sure how to put this - but you did it again

To put it broadly, programming is all about problem solving using math and logic. So, if someone doesn't want to do that, yes, they are in the wrong field.

No it's not. There are fields where you don't need math (not more than arithmetic), for example CSS, devops, system administration, security (I'm not talking about writing secure algorithm, but rather fighting SQL injections)

When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.

devwtf

Are you a president of the programming field, so you can alone decide who can be in the field and who can't?

UPD Your profile says you are CEO. You can use those criterias to decide if you want to hire person to your company or not. No problems here. But you can't decide for people if they belong to the field or not.

Personal attacks aren't very conducive to constructive discussions, and are running contrary to the Code of Conduct.

For the benefit of other readers, I will further clarify my meaning:

As someone with years of experience as a mentor, an internship coordinator, and an active part of multiple beginner-friendly communities, and as someone who has seen first-hand who winds up thriving in this field, and who burns out, I'm providing a piece of career advice, based on a premise that has proven unvaryingly true through the decades.

Regardless of specialty, the entirety of programming is built on the principles of logic and mathematics, and these are inescapable in their whole, even if particular components are not applied.

I also applied my statements to programming, of which devops, sys admin, and server security are not technically considered branches thereof. (I've also done all of the later). CSS, in isolation, can sometimes be considered a branch of computer-aided graphics design, which is tangentially related to programming, isn't strictly a subfield.

At no point did I state or imply that someone who dislikes applied logic does not have access or rights to the community. I am simply stating what millions of professionals in this field can quickly and readily confirm: if someone dislikes the fundamental principles of programming, they're going to hate this career field.

I see the difference between

If that sounds like a waste of your time, you're in the wrong field.

Which I interpreted as gatekeeping and

if someone dislikes the fundamental principles of programming, they're going to hate this career field.

Which can be interpreted as career advice (you may not enjoy it, but feel free to try it, this is based on my personal experience).

That what I tried to point out. If there was personal attack I would like to know about that (from community or administration), so I can fix my behaviour. I don't see attack. I saw issue, I pointed out it

(Speaking as a tag moderator on six different active tags.)

Are you a president of the programming field, so you can alone decide who can be in the field and who can't?

That (and similar phrases) were accusatory, and not appropriate.I'd have flagged it coming from anyone, and addressed to anyone.

The better way to bring up such a concern would be to ask clarifying questions, especially after I assured you I wasn't gatekeeping. What you just posted was a much calmer and more productive way of voicing your concern (which I appreciate).

Perhaps a better initial response would have been "It sounds like you're saying that people are not welcome in the programming field if they dislike logic. Is that what you meant?" (That's assuming the best about the author, instead of the worst, which is a good universal policy to adopt.)


(Switching back to community-member mode.)

I can see how my original phrasing, in isolation, could be taken as gatekeeping. I still think the rest of my post makes my intent clear. Remember, I wasn't writing to curious people who were just poking it with a stick. I was specifically addressing people who were embracing Javascript (etc) because it felt like "magic," and prevented them from having to learn the tough stuff. That's a very specific audience.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my intent. I certainly never want to discourage someone from trying programming, but I also don't want to encourage them to waste time trying to master something they're already showing signs of hating. And, as I said, I don't dare apply the label to anyone myself. I described the pattern. It is explicitly the reader's job to assess whether it applies to them.

Are you a president of the programming field, so you can alone decide who can be in the field and who can't?

I tried to illustrate what the gatekeeping is, because I suspected that you did it (gatekeeping phrases) two times in a row, and fail to see what is wrong with that.

Apparently this was a problem of phrasing. To be fair I was not the only one who failed to correctly understand your phrasing. You used "I never said that" two times in comments for this article e.g. your phrasing was misinterpreted and you need to explain it with extended comment

It sounds like you're saying that people are not welcome in the programming field if they dislike logic. Is that what you meant?

Yes agree with this phrasing. Will use something similar next time

Well, to be fair, I'll monitor how many people continue to express concern about meaning.

The difficulty with approaching a topic this sensitive, you understand, is that one will inevitably get detracting comments from people who only skimmed the article, and either deliberately or unintentionally missed the point. I've had it happen with far less controversial topics, wherein someone actually accused me of making a point I'd explicitly stated in the article I wasn't making.

Not to say my phrasing can't be improved, but on the basis of the above, I never take the first couple "misunderstandings" seriously. Once it becomes clearer, I look into adjusting if necessary. That's important to maintaining sanity, as those individuals determined to misinterpret will do so no matter what is said.

In any case, I tweaked the last sentence to be a little less "misunderstandable".

(Also, thanks for being open to learning how to interact more constructively.)

It's up to you to decide, but people will skim articles this is natural thing for people to do. There are way to much information, people try to understand if it is even worth to read the piece or not. 10% of people are dyslexic (they have extra troubles reading complex texts). It means that a lot of people will take away from your article wrong message ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm also dyslexic, and a traumatic brain injury survivor who had to relearn how to read. I'm a professional writer with a college background in communication, and I've mentored ESL students, disabled students, and the whole gamut of reading capabilities. I believe in clarity in writing, but I also believe the reader has a responsibility as well.

TL;DR is not a positive life strategy. Incidentally, that was also a tangential subpoint of the article. Skimming is fine in its place, but if someone is going to take the time to comment, share, or apply what they read, they should first take the time to read throughly.

code of conduct - report abuse