A developer is a writer; one writes English and the other writes code, but they both write to a human audience (the only "code" a machine needs to see is 0s and 1s; programming languages are for humans).
So there really shouldn't be a big difference in hiring a writer vs. a developer; and a good test would probably be to have developers write essays in English about a technical question: can they make themselves understood?
I would not hire a developer who is incapable of explaining what he's doing, why he's doing it, what the other options are, etc.
Wouldn't it be a good technique to have interviewees bring an example of their own code that they're especially proud of, and have them explain what it does and why it's great?
> A developer is a writer; one writes English and the other writes code, but they both write to a human audience (the only "code" a machine needs to see is 0s and 1s; programming languages are for humans).
I definitely agree with this! That's what I had been thinking the whole time while reading the articles and the comment threads. This is also my motto, here in the office.
It's too simple to say that there are differences between writers and programmers. I think "writer" should be treated as an umbrella term that encompasses braod ranges of skills. After all, a journalist, a poet, a technical writer and a translator aren't really doing the same thing, are they? I like to believe that the core subset of skills needed to be one of these is also needed (or at least highly valued) to be a good programmer.
That's kind of an interesting point.
People assume that skill in programming is generally correlated with Math skill and there is certainly some truth to that.
However I generally find that people who write sloppy English also write sloppy code.
So there really shouldn't be a big difference in hiring a writer vs. a developer; and a good test would probably be to have developers write essays in English about a technical question: can they make themselves understood?
I would not hire a developer who is incapable of explaining what he's doing, why he's doing it, what the other options are, etc.
Wouldn't it be a good technique to have interviewees bring an example of their own code that they're especially proud of, and have them explain what it does and why it's great?