LiveCode Forums.

Hi All,

Just for curiosity, Does exists for LiveCode (and others x-talk languages)
a Programmer Competency Matrix like this?

http://www.starling-software.com/employ ... atrix.html

Thanks in advance!

Al

I highly doubt this!

I'm not sure I understand the question Al, for instance, that list is generic enough to apply to any programming language (which is what most lists like that are meant to do).

According to that list, I am at level .5

That matrix seems really odd as in some areas I'm at the front, and in others I'm well to the back.

Certainly, with regard to LiveCode, some of those sections seem strikingly irrelevant:

Doesn't know what a compiler, linker or interpreter is

Does one need to know what these are to work with LiveCode? No, of course not.

richmond62 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:15 am

Doesn't know what a compiler, linker or interpreter is

Does one need to know what these are to work with LiveCode? No, of course not.

I'm not so sure, do you think someone working in Lc should know when they are in browse mode, run mode, or whether the program is running in the development engine or standalone engine?

I think at the very least, they would have to understand the difference between browse and run mode

I think at the very least

Err, yes, I think from time to time as well.

What LiveCode has done (or, to be fair, what HyperCard did and LiveCode propagated) is
dejargonise a lot of terminology, and as such, many LiveCode people who are really reasonably
competent programmers, while knowing many of the things listed in that Competency Matrix
may not know the terminology used in the matrix for them: which could prove to be
somewhat misleading.

Certainly, should anyone wish to use a competency matrix of that sort for assessing LiveCode
users they would have to relabel quite a few of the things first . . .

And, with regard to compilers, linkers and interpreters, I am not entirely sure why a LiveCode
needs to know what those are or do anymore than I need to know what a spark plug is or
what it does when I drive a car with an internal combustion engine.

When I think about compilers, linkers and interpreters I think about my long-suffering father
cursing and swearing with the starter handle on our Daimler in 1964 and my grandfather pointing out that "modern" cars had starter motors instead.
-

richmond62 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:07 pm

Certainly, should anyone wish to use a competency matrix of that sort for assessing LiveCode
users they would have to relabel quite a few of the things first . . .

I'm in the "Rose by any other name" camp I think, whether your 'compiling' or 'creating a standalone', 'linking' or 'setting inclusions', your working towards producing a program that will run on its own, and should have some idea of the steps involved, especially where we are talking about levels of 'competency' and not 'it is magick!'.

Just my take on it

should have some idea of the steps involved

Indeed.

But the question is how "deep" is it necessary to go?

For the sake of argument:

I can program reasonably well, and have programmed reasonably well, on-and-off for 44 years (ouch!).

At no time, either in 1975 when I started with MiniFortran and FORTRAN IV, nor during University
classes in PASCAL V (1983), was I ever taught about compiling, linking or interpreting.\

And why would that be, forbye?

Well, for the simple reason that the computer was taking my code in FORTRAN or whatever,
and doing the compiling, linking and interpreting for me, because some "clever laddie"
(well, at least, while maybe not being more clever than me, certainly more motivated in
that direction) had "taught" the computer how to do that already.

This is what is termed specialisation. I tend to buy my flour ready-made when I wish
to make pancakes, I don't plough the field, sow the wheat, reap, winnow and
grind the wheat into the flour first.
Most meat-eaters don't raise and slaughter their own beasts . . . [ admittedly
there is a school of thought that states it would be better if they had to. ]

Now, while I understand that computers do NOT talk to themselves in FORTRAN, but in
"Yesses and Noes", and that computers "do something called compiling" with my FORTRAN
before they start talking to themselves, I do NOT need to know the intimate details of
how that happens.

-----

I got involved in a similar argument with some "experts" in the Bulgarian Ministry
of Education a couple of years ago. They insisted that kiddos studying programming
had to understand how NAND gates worked and so on, before they could start thinking
about the corny "Hello World" program.

-----

And, ultimately, my interest in "competency matrices" comes down to education as I have no
great urge to either prove some point by pumping out some super-duper programming, or
to apply for some programming job.

I do believe that many, many young people who could contribute an awful lot to the
"digital revolution" [I wonder why phrases like that always give me an upset stomach?]
are turned away from learning how to get computers to do useful things by what I regard as
unnecessary requirements to do with an awful lot of stuff that is listed in that competency matrix.

How much of the "bumf" that is listed in that competency matrix is strictly unnecessary,
and how much just needs to be relabelled in a "friendlier" fashion is another question that
needs to be addressed as well.

richmond62 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:42 pm

But the question is how "deep" is it necessary to go?

The answer to that would depend of course on what you are trying to show. If you are trying to show you are a complete beginner (0 competency), then naturally it would mean nothing to you. If you are trying to show you are competent enough to write an IDE in language x, then I would think it would mean a great deal to you.

If you just want to find out someone elses level of knowledge, say to place them in a job, and know whether you will have to place someone over their shoulder or not, then the answers they give or can demonstrate matter a great deal.

richmond62 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:42 pm

At no time, either in 1975 when I started with MiniFortran and FORTRAN IV, nor during University
classes in PASCAL V (1983), was I ever taught about compiling, linking or interpreting.\

I can't really speak to universities or colleges, having never attended one myself, however when I was learning programming, i was using a text editor as recommended by the manuals that came with the computer, and by a large number of books I read afterwards covering assembly, c, pascal and cobol.

Every single book I read from either of the above 2 camps went into explicit detail on how to write, compile, link, etc., so I would think that if that isn't being taught in at least a rudimentary way at a higher education level, then there is a deficiency in the teaching methods at that level.

richmond62 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:42 pm

I tend to buy my flour ready-made when I wish
to make pancakes, I don't plough the field, sow the wheat, reap, winnow and
grind the wheat into the flour first.

Maybe not, but I see you at least understand (have some competency) in the process involved that created the product your making your flapjacks with

richmond62 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:42 pm

Most meat-eaters don't raise and slaughter their own beasts . . . [ admittedly
there is a school of thought that states it would be better if they had to. ]

Again, I think most people digesting a burger realize that it comes from killing a cow and have at the very least a rudimentary idea of how that happened. I'm sure they don't think the cow dropped dead all on its own and turned into hamburger on the store shelf after elves picked up the carcass

I am not saying that everyone that thinks about taking up programming should have an in-depth intimate knowledge of registers and the like, but I think they should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of what is going on behind the doors as it were.

Either road, none of that is what the competency test is about. It is merely an indicator of how much a given individual has a.) learned, b.) retained, and c.) can apply.

Just like any other test.

Just like any other test.

Possibly . . . in some parts of the world . . .

Over "here" (Bulgaria) and my experience in KSA and the UAE, I have found that exams
test learning and retention only, and a very high proportion of those who score highly
in those tests cannot apply any of that at all in real-world situations.

Having worked on farms with no formal training at all, and having
seen many people with qualifications from agricultural colleges kill
animals through a distinct lack of competence I am all too well aware that
a proper assessment of competency should consist of a practical
demonstration as well as a theoretical exam.

Medical students in Saudi Arabia passed the test where answers to questions such as,
"Where are the kidneys" had the answer "In the ankles" (the Holy Prophet stated
that in either the Hadith or Fiqr according to what I was told at King Abdul-Aziz
University in Jeddah), but I wonder how many people they actually sorted out
when it came to kidney disease?

I am well aware of the underpinnings of computer programming, but not to
the point where, unlike some people:

your flapjacks

I know that you DON'T use wheat flour when you're making flapjacks:
- -
And, perhaps I should point out, I don't use either wheat or rolled oats in
my LiveCode programming.

OK, OK: I'll retract that . . .

I gather than the North Americans tend to call
Drop Scones, Flapjacks, just as the English tend to call Drop Scones, Pancakes.

Of course, as in programming, there is no such thing as Subjectivity, we ALL know they Drop Scones.
- -
A Drop Scone!

Or, just possibly, a "dropped scone".

Interesting course doc there, I'll have to peruse it later and see if I can grok it

richmond62 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:46 pm

I know that you DON'T use wheat flour when you're making flapjacks:

I will easily admit your probably a more competent cook than I am, since if it is more complicated than eggs or burgers, I'm out of my league

richmond62 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:53 pm

Or, just possibly, a "dropped scone".

Well, if you drop it, I sure ain't eating it

I'm out of my league

Hmm . . . anyone for split-personality syndrome?