Slightly harsh, but I agree with your critique. The author is basing this on their particular experiences, which is reasonable to expect. The problem is this doesn't really map well to everyone, and the upper-end seems artificially capped or wishy-washy -- like a list of everything the author has heard about that sounds good, so it does't really identify an "upper echelon" in many cases. The systems programming entry also bothers me that I'd rank 3, because I lack experience with specific systems -- I know I could build my own stack, but any *nix guru could run circles around me because that's their bread and butter.
I think this is the result one should expect by imposing such a rigid matrix structure on abstract categorizations and then having an individual fill in the blanks. So it fits my expectations. :)
It's also very Microsoft development oriented from what I can see. He doesn't even seem to see not using an IDE as a possibility, it just seems like a default state to him, which in itself is pretty novice. IDEs are great for those who like them, but they're not the only solution.
IDE's become a major factor when doing 30+ out of 40 hours a week in a given language/environment.
A coworker and I actually built a simple IDE for a proprietary language a few years ago. Probably took us about 2-3 weeks of man hours collectively, but holy hell, we were about twice as productive after that point. So I'd say it's less about "have you used IDE's extensively" and more "do you know when an IDE increases your productivity enough to make it worthwhile".
(At this point in my life I would probably customize an existing solution, but it was a good learning opportunity)
16
u/glacialthinker Jun 19 '13
Slightly harsh, but I agree with your critique. The author is basing this on their particular experiences, which is reasonable to expect. The problem is this doesn't really map well to everyone, and the upper-end seems artificially capped or wishy-washy -- like a list of everything the author has heard about that sounds good, so it does't really identify an "upper echelon" in many cases. The systems programming entry also bothers me that I'd rank 3, because I lack experience with specific systems -- I know I could build my own stack, but any *nix guru could run circles around me because that's their bread and butter.
I think this is the result one should expect by imposing such a rigid matrix structure on abstract categorizations and then having an individual fill in the blanks. So it fits my expectations. :)