I’ve worked with plenty of self taught programmers over the years. Lots of smart people. But there’s always blind spots in how they approach problems. Many fixate on tools and approaches without really seeing how those tools fit into a wider ecosystem. Some just have no idea how to make software reliable.
I’m sure this stuff can be learned. But there is a certain kind of deep, slow understanding you just don’t get from watching back-to-back 15 minute YouTube videos on a topic.
I've worked with PhDs on projects (I'm self-taught), and those guys absolutely have blind spots in how they approach problems, plenty of them. Everyone does. What we produce together is better because our blind spots don't typically overlap. I know their weaknesses, and they know mine. I've also worked with college grads that overthink everything to the point they made an over-abstracted mess. YMMV.
>you just don’t get from watching back-to-back 15 minute YouTube videos on a topic.
This is not "self taught". I mean maybe it's one kind of modern-ish concept of "self taught" in an internet comment forum, but it really isn't. I watch a ton of sailing videos all day long, but I've never been on a sailboat, nor do I think I know how to sail. Everyone competent has to pay their dues and learn hard lessons the hard way before they get good at anything, even the PhDs.
But if they actually spent time trying to learn architecture and how to build stuff well, either by reading books or via good mentorship on the job, then they can often be better than the folks who went to school. Sometimes even they don't know how to make software reliable.
I'm firmly in the middle. Out of the 6 engineers I work with on a daily basis (including my CTO), only one of us has a degree in CS, and he's not the one in an architecture role.
I do agree that learning how to think and learn is its own valuable skill set, and many folks learn how to do that in different ways.
Yeah I just haven’t seen this happen. I’ve seen plenty of people graduate who were pretty useless. But … I think every self taught programmer I’ve worked with had meaningful gaps in their knowledge.
They’d spend a week in JavaScript to save them from 5 minutes with C or bash. Or they’d write incredibly slow code because they didn’t know the appropriate algorithms and data structures. They wouldn’t know how to profile their program to learn where the time is being spent. (Or that that’s even a thing). Some would have terrible intuitions around how the computer actually runs a program, so they can’t guess what would be fast or slow. I’ve seen wild abstractions to work around misunderstandings of the operating system. Hundreds of lines to deal with a case that can’t actually ever happen, or because someone missed the memo on a syscall that solves their exact problem. There’s also hairball nests of code because someone doesn’t know what a state machine is. Or how to factorise their problem in other ways. One guy I worked with thought the react team invented functional programming. Someone else doesn’t understand how you could write programs without OO inheritance. And I’ve seen so many bugs. Months of bugs, that could be prevented with the right design and tests.
I’ve worked with incredibly smart self taught programmers. Some of the smartest people I’ve ever worked with. But the thing about blind spots is you don’t know you have them. You say you’re self taught, and self taught people can be better than people who went to school. In limited domains, yeah. Smart matters a lot. But you don’t know what you don’t know. You don’t know what you missed out on. And you don’t know what problems in the workplace you could have easily solved if you knew how.
Am I an outlier or am I missing something here?
1. contacts - these come in the form of peers who are interested in the same things and in the form of experts in their fields of study. Talking to these people and developing relationships will help you learn faster, and teach you how to have professional collegial relationships. These people can open doors for you long after graduation.
2. facilities - ever want to play with an electron microscope or work with dangerous chemicals safely? Different schools have different facilities available for students in different fields. If you want to study nuclear physics, you might want to go to a school with a research reactor; it's not a good idea to build your own.
And I'd argue for:
3. Realisation of the scope of computing.
IE Computers are not just phones/laptop/desktop/server with networking - all hail the wonders of the web... There are embedded devices, robots, supercomputers. (Recent articles on HN describe the computing power in a disposable vape!)
There are issues at all levels with all of these with algorithms, design, fabrication, security, energy, societal influence, etc etc - what tradeoffs to make where. (Why is there computing power in a disposable vape?!?)
I went in thinking I knew 20% and I would learn the other 80% of IT. I came out knowing 5 times as much but realising I knew a much smaller percentage of IT... It was both enabling and humbling.
