in-depth^cursory study@advanced programm`topics

I have seen both, and tried both.

AA) A minority of developers spend the time studying and understanding the important details of threading, generics, templates … before writing code.

BB) Majority of developers don’t have the time, vision or patience, and only learn the minimum to get the (sloppy) job done. They copy-paste sample code and rely on testing, but the test cases are limited to realistic UAT test cases and will not cover edge cases that have yet to occur. For concurrency designs, such tests are not good enough.

AA is often seen as unnecessary except:
* Interviewers often go in-depth
* In a product vendor rather than an in-house application team
* If requirement is unusual (eg: B2BTradingEngine), then BB won’t even pass basic developer self-tests. Sample code may not be available — see my post http://wp.me/p74oew-1oI. So developers must bite the bullet and take AA approach. This is my sweet spot. See
https://bintanvictor.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/strength-gtd-with-non-trivial-researchinnovation/ https://bintanvictor.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/theoretical-complexity-strength/
https://bintanvictor.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/tech-specializations-no-such-luxury-in-singapore/

On Wall St projects, I learned to abandon AA and adopt BB.

On Wall St interviews, I still adopt AA.

On West Coast, I think AA is more needed.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s