I read "ten floors of programmers"

After reading "the ten floors of programmers", the first feeling is nonsense. This article was written by Zhou weiming. He divided programmers into 10 levels: cainiao, prawns, cattle, Daniel, experts, scholars, masters, scientists, scientists, and dazhe. Finally, we made an 11-layer architecture: God.

The programmer's responsibility is to work with people to write the program. There is a specialization in the industry, and any innovation is based on a large number of previous research. If programmers can innovate, it is also a matter of opportunity and interest.

In my opinion, what China lacks most is not the ability to innovate, but the ability to achieve. Looking at the innovative papers published by masters and doctors, I just think it is funny. There is no practical ability, but what about theoretical innovation. How many projects in colleges and universities can be put into practice? Even if you have something of your own in technology, you still have no value in the end because of lack of implementation and promotion capabilities.

The value of programmers lies in implementation, which is to turn blueprints into valuable products in the real world. The value of programmers can only be reflected by programs. If we follow the path that Zhou weiming says, we will only generate a self-righteous and useless person.

Theoretical research and programming are different tasks. All the programmer has to do is implement the definite algorithm or protocol. If a programmer can create new satellite navigation algorithms, he is not a programmer but a satellite navigation expert.

Programmers need to study how to use the design model to implement the domain model and how to implement the design model with low coupling and high efficiency.

 

Postscript

I got up last Saturday morning and read this article as recommended by csdn:
Http://software.intel.com/zh-cn/blogs/2009/02/09/1092/

After reading the paper, I felt very uncomfortable. I wrote my own feelings and did not expect so many netizens to pay attention to it. Many netizens have criticized me for my case and do not attack others. I thought it was right, so I deleted the last section of the original article. I thought about whether I was wrong or not, and summarized my points as follows:

The ten floors of programmers do have merits. If it has no merits, it is not worth mentioning. However, this article has two wrong orientations that make me very disgusted. One is to expand the programmer profession infinitely. The second is the "only theoretical high" argument.

A programmer is an ordinary profession, and there is no need to be arrogant or arrogant. Programmers do not have to be programmers for a lifetime. I have seen programmers switch to project management, administrative management, magazine editing, newspaper IT department supervisor, business decoration materials, education software companies, foreign companies for Fae, and sales, I have also seen programmers go to doctor and post-doctor, become university teachers, and engage in scientific research. Programmers will not be programmers after the transfer. However, if a person is a programmer, he should do a good job as a programmer.

I think there are four main points to evaluate a programmer: language, environment, thoughts, and experience. A good programmer can either explain the system architecture to a UML diagram or explain the meaning of each byte at every moment during system operation. To achieve this level, it takes a long time to accumulate. If every programmer has been working for several years, it will be difficult to improve the level of software development in China. To improve the software level in China, the society should form an atmosphere that allows programmers to study and work with peace of mind, instead of worrying about what to do after the age of 35, or thinking about how to become a scholar, Master, scientist, scientist, or dazhe all day.

Who is more important to China's current theoretical research and the ability to put the theory into practice? This is a matter of benevolence and wisdom. I emphasize the "implementation capability" because China does not pay too much attention to "Implementation.

In my opinion, Chinese people do not need their own CPUs, operating systems, office software, cell phone chips, or mobile phone software, the main reason for not using their own satellite navigation chips is not lack of theory, but the ability to put theory into reality ". For example, large-scale software design capability, project management capability, and business promotion capability.

Many enterprises in China have developed their own CPUs, operating systems, office software, mobile phone chips, mobile phone software, and satellite navigation chips, why can't we achieve business success? There are standards and patents, but lack of implementation and promotion capabilities is a very important factor. What is the significance of this theory if all theories only lie in the title of a thesis, publication, degree answer, expert, or Academician?

Some friends say that they cannot do anything in China because they do not encourage innovation. However, most of the projects I have seen have invested a lot of money in the country, and the project leader also has real talents and technologies. Why is it still unsuccessful?

Creating a product is not just about core technologies. The failure of these products is not due to core technologies, but to specific software and hardware design, user-friendly design, project management, and commercial promotion. In fact, these seemingly non-core technologies also contain many experiences, ideas, and lessons. If every programmer in China wants to be a scientist and study profound theories. So who will turn these theories into valuable things? The harm of Zhou weiming's remarks lies in this.

In many people's thinking, the bureaucracy is always high, the workers are low, the mental labor is high, and the physical labor is low. This mode of thinking is harmful. The value of a person lies in his contribution to society, not in his possession of social resources. Society needs superior managers, but no one needs to become managers. Society needs scientists, but no one needs to become scientists. If everyone in a society only wants to get ahead, be human, and possess more resources, can this society make stable and reliable products?

Some netizens say, "who are you and Zhou weiming blind "? I have said in an old article that the only truth in the world is not to blindly trust the truth. Do not blindly follow others. My experiences determine my views. You should create your own views based on your own experiences and experiences.