On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:43:45 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> If you need something done in a real hurry, then having somebody who
>>> can hit the ground running can be very important.
>>
>> That's actually the case not just when you need something done in a
>> real hurry.
>>
>> Training employees is expensive.  If you hire someone who has exactly
>> what you're looking for, it saves you money.
> 
> Well, sure.
> 
> But remember, we're not talking about training somebody to be an expert
> carpenter when they've never sawn a block of wood in their life. We're
> talking about taking somebody who's an expert programmer and giving them
> two to three weeks to learn a new programming language. If you're going
> to employ somebody for 5+ years, then giving them a week or two to learn
> a necessary skill is peanuts.

It depends on the programmer.  I've worked with programmers who studied 
syntax of the language they're most familiar with (C, for example), who 
would be completely lost in C++ because they didn't learn OOP.

Some programmers only learn syntax - and in their language they do pretty 
well, but learning a new one is more difficult for them.

Don't make the assumption that because you pick up languages easily that 
everyone does.

> I guess part of it is that the majority of applications apparently lie
> to a quite shocking degree. (Exhibit A: Fizz Buzz exists.) Hiring
> somebody who can *prove* that they already wrote something in C# (or
> whatever) is the safest way to get rid of the utter time wasters. But it
> seems a pity to also get rid of some really great people...

That's the nature of hiring - sometimes you miss the right person because 
you fail to ask the right questions or they fail to provide answers that 
accurately communicate their skills.

Jim

Post a reply to this message