Most people are not in the job because they like create things or build things. They are there because they want a job and nothing more. And they want a job where (unit of money)/(unit of work) has a higher value.
That means they have to either figure out a way to make more money or do less work, or both.
Therefore the question of early interest or passion is meaningless to most people. So as far as they are concerned, it rarely matters how set of people of identity A got to it. They think regardless of that if set A got it, other sets should get it too.
This also creates other problems. Set A is likely to do side projects, write programs and hacks out of personal interest. Other sets looking at job as a return/effort metric will likely see why they are expected to do anything all all apart from working 5 hrs a day between 9 - 5.
The problem is merit is heavily at the side of A and other sets want the reward to not go with merit, but rather with participation itself.
People didn't give two shits about the nerds and the tiny useless portion of the world known as computing they occupied 20 years ago - back then it was less glamorous and less money involved. They scoffed at the morons who not only did computers at work but continued to think, write and do "work" after work!
Now theres money involved everyone wants in! Now those same leeches demand to be given the same roles/money as those who worked much harder for it , because its so unfair that people who put have more experience and passion are rewarded while they are not!
People didn't give two shits about the ladies and doing the tiny useless portion of the world known as software they occupied 50 years ago - back then it was less glamorous and less money involved.
Yes, women used to dominate software development. Until the money and prestige started coming in, then men started dominating the profession.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/computer-programmin...
I have never seen any multiple-data-point evidence presented to support it. Sure, various prominent entrepreneurs used computers as hobbyists (Gates, Zuckerberg), but does that apply to the typical programmer?
We all encountered students in classes who didn't study yet completely grokked their mathematics and algorithms coursework. Why is it so hard to believe that those quick learners use their time effectively at work?
Additionally, a multiplier to good engineering is strong communication and organizational skills; those can be enhanced through social recreational activity, and diminished by spending leisure time in solitude.
I'm not claiming either method is better, and intuitively the passionate engineer should win, but we shouldn't take it for granted until we get some actual information.
Edit: there seems to be some belief that I don't value experience. It is extremely important. We just shouldn't take it for granted that programming at home is as valuable as work experience.
There is little difference between "experience programming during a job" and "experience programming for fun". It is the same activity.
So of course those with more experience should be expected (on average) to better than those with less. Of course those who seek out more experience due to passion will (on average) be better than those who don't.
It's not an unusual thing to expect at all. People who care more do better.. in every human endeavor, and this is widely accepted by society. It only seems unusual when newcomers cry "unfair" when they see others enjoying the fruits of their labor.
You can ask for data - great, we don't know the answer. But if I had to guess one way or the other, based on all human experience, yes I would lean heavily towards experience. Its why professors know more than students, why Edison invented a lightbulb after a thousand other failed inventions, it is the basis for the very concept of an expert - its why we appoint a doctor instead of a physicist to run a hospital. Its pretty goddamn fundamental - people get better at things with time, so those with more time tend to be better.
If you are good at doing projects. Along the way you learn a lot of other very important life skills. Things like resourcefulness, persisting at things, immunity to failure, trying many times etc. And these come handy and are usable to to many things that actually matter in the real world. That is building things.
These things are harder to gain at a later stage in life because expectations from one's life at that time are different and you have to worry more about monthly payments and putting food on the table. You don't have 10 - 15 years lying around to do what other programmers have done in their early years where it was cheap to that in terms of time.
You are also discounting the accumulative effects of these things. After a while due to years of practice, early starters are likely to get very good at things in a far more disproportionate way than those who come later.
Personally I think the correlation I've seen personally is strong enough that I'd be shocked if a study proved it otherwise.
The free market already allows founders and backers to back their theories with money and compete in the marketplace.
Who play with dolls and who plays with action figures or cars is even moremember irrelevant.
High paying computer jobs are not filled with nerds nor high funstional autistic while we ate at it too.
I beg to differ
