What? Anyone who understands the evidence for evolution should accept the theory, because it's just that compelling. If there is another explanation for all of the data & experimental confirmations then let us know, I'm sure you've got a paper in Nature awaiting.
Of all the true geniuses I have met none are "on the internet", or if they are, are passive observers. They tend to be too busy doing amazing things than writing about it. I have no doubt that each would be a "superstar blogger" if they so decided to, but I highly doubt it's ever going to happen.
In private, they share in confidence with people they trust and organizations that they work with who treat such knowledge as competitive advantage.
The thing is, once you are at the top of your field, what incentive is there to share if you are still making personal breakthroughs on a regular basis? I don't see any.
That's a pretty big claim to be implying - that TS has less exits than YC and are second string. Do you have the numbers in front of you, or was it a guess? I've heard otherwise, so wonder where you get your information from.
Performance under extreme pressure is by definition what sorts out he great from the average in other disciplines: sports, music, performing etc.
If you haven't experienced sport (or similar) at the highest levels you probably won't get how much a few insane minutes can enhance your mastery. It really is a whole new level, where everyone is competing at their peak and you have to greatly improve your level or fail miserably.
This type of pressure & competitiveness just doesn't happen in most business environments, so the degree of pressure to lift your game isn't there.
They would be pretty rare on youtube I expect, the sensei's i have encountered have always been pretty secretive. I would suggest just starting up (they love helping beginners) and going to the first grading to see what it's like.
>Not the easiests of problems though. Do you know what statistics you would apply?
There are many ways. Off the top of my head:
- to focus on speed of development you could use a practice or warm-up
> provide each with a practice in another language
> provide a sample solution in pseudocode in both functional and imperative style
- To focus on speed of problem solving you could use topcoder data + research of participants programming language backgrounds.
The important thing is that if the effect is large it's easy to spot. According to some, the difference is an order of magnitude. If that's true, it will be trivial to spot.
This is what statistics are for, and is exactly the same situation that many other disciplines find themselves in where treatment a influences treatment b.
If the effect size is large (i.e. the magnitude of difference between the means of lisp vs non-lisp programmers) the size of problem should be irrelevant.
Many thousands of programmers spend hours each week in pissing matches online. Why is it none of them feel like truly putting their money where their mouth is?
Now that is interesting. I personally agree with the hypothesis that lisp is a step forward, but often wonder why it's an anecdotal argument than one that is data backed.
This paper although makes me think they compared programmers not languages, as the imperative language programmers didn't have any functional experience. It would be interesting to see a comparison between programmers of roughly equal competency.
That's the same explanation psychics give. If the effect size is large (as is claimed), it should be an extremely simple study. So why has no one done it?
Why don't the lispers organize a RAD competition between lisp and all-comers, surely if lisp is that much more productive you would see the top ten places being lisp dialects.
Surely if lisp makes a programmer N times more efficient then it would be easy to study scientifically. Have there been any studies comparing productivity?
Why is it that in RAD application competitions, "mainstream" languages often win?
Also, if it were truly n times better the library disparity wouldn't exist; libraries should be n times faster to make or duplicate.
I'm asking for evidence here: how can something be so much better and have such a paucity of evidence for it's efficacy? If there really is such scientific evidence for lisps effectiveness I would love to read it & and distribute it to my colleagues in charge of large development teams.
The last time I was employed I got frustrated with this having deployed 5 applications to customers in a few months on my own, and simply negotiated a contracting role. We came up with a fixed price for each job, bugs included, and I tried to make as much per hour as possible. My hourly rate ended up being >250$/hr, and the application is still in production now 7 years after deploying.
The other comments are correct; if you aren't willing to take any risk, then you don't deserve the benefits. If you think you are good, put your money where your mouth is :)