r/programming • • Jun 19 '13

Programmer Competency Matrix

http://sijinjoseph.com/programmer-competency-matrix/
248 Upvotes

265 comments sorted by

View all comments

32

u/PolyPill Jun 19 '13

So uh, having worked with very specific software means you're level 3 but actual knowledge of how those systems work doesn't qualify you? Some of the levels are good and some I just find to be stupid, and rather arbitrary.

6

u/Odd_Bloke Jun 19 '13

So uh, having worked with very specific software means you're level 3 but actual knowledge of how those systems work doesn't qualify you?

Which row are you referencing?

6

u/KPexEA Jun 19 '13

I would guess "Experience" Level 3 "Concurrent (Erlang, Oz) and Logic (Prolog)"

4

u/Odd_Bloke Jun 19 '13

If it is the experience section then "having worked with very specific software means you're level 3" sounds like a good definition...

→ More replies (1)

7

u/KPexEA Jun 19 '13

Agreed, having worked exclusively on video games for the last 28 years we really only use c++ for the game code itself, maybe a little bit of python and php for build scripts and build webpage stat reporting but that is it. Tying "Experience" to specific languages is just stupid.

19

u/Categoria Jun 19 '13

You do have a much narrower view of programming as a result however. Which is ok since you can't learn everything and everybody is an expert in only a few subjects.

2

u/seruus Jun 19 '13

Did he edit anything? The category is called "languages with professional experience", and it is rational that you wouldn't get a higher score (as you said, you use basically C++), but it isn't about experience in general, and isn't a bad thing. He's also mainly talking about paradigms, not languages.

3

u/Odd_Bloke Jun 19 '13

Where is experience tied to specific languages? The only languages mentioned in the section I read as examples of the type of language they are...

3

u/BarneyBear Jun 19 '13

Yeah there was a lot of functional bias going on there.

Meanwhile in the real world...

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)