[Ilugc] Comparing programing languages [was: perl OO]
- From: suraj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Suraj Kumar)
- Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 10:42:58 +0530
On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Natarajan V <rajanvn at gmail.com> wrote:
From a hiring perspective, am not sure why people are obsessed with
the mastery over the syntax of the languages. This also creates a
problem, when you frame a question that is applicable for PERL and not
very applicable for Java. We have to understand that programmers are
not a single breed. Everyone specializes/has interests in particular
areas.You can't compare a OS programmer, with a Game developer, with
an enterprise application developer, with a mashup developer (What is
a Mash up?). Am sure the Mashup developer would have the least clue of
what it takes to sort objects in Java/ Perl.
Agreed to every thing you say. Not sure where I gave you the impression
that perl, as a common ground for measuring language skills, is a good
filter. Measuring one's language skills is of use only for gauging if the
candidate might be useful to fulfill, also, the short term needs (which,
usually, is to maintain/extend/fix an already developed solution).
Measuring based on language skills is of only a cosmetic use from the point
of view of hiring a long-term asset for a company. I didn't mean to say
perl is "syntactically tough" or somesuch and hence its a good tool for
interviews. Nope. I only meant to say this:
Perl (or C, for that matter) doesn't lay out things on a plate. Perl
requires understanding of core OS concepts before one can build real world
applications for use in a production environment. PHP, Java, etc., OTOH,
makes it infinitely easy for anybody to program and build seemingly real
world applications, allowing all sorts of people to write all sorts of
things and still get away with it. In Java, it is the VM that externalizes
problems, as though, it is someone else's to handle.
I meant to say, thus, if you come across a perl programmer who has built
real world applications, chances are their fundamentals will be strong
(which, of course, you'd be testing in the interview). Their fundamentals
are strong because the language forced them to rethink their approach at
every juncture of their own skill development. That said, likewise, one
also comes across a whole bunch of "perl scripting" people who have not
written anything more than 300 lines of relevant code... but then, again,
it is very easy to spot them.
IMHO, the problem isn't with Java/Perl, its a problem with your
question paper / interview panel. As I said earlier, a language is
independent of analytical skills. Why not frame your questions in such
a way that they don't have to write programs, but provide you with
algorithms instead?
Absolutely agree. But tell me, from your experience, do you have a perfect
interview panel who all ask relevant, core testing questions? :)
-Suraj
--
Career Gear - Industry Driven Talent Factory
Other related posts: