Comments by "" (@grokitall) on "We Need To Stop Lying About Git" video.

  1. the problem here is not just them, but also you. by allowing them to merge broken code and then fixing it for them, repeatedly, you are enabling their bad behaviour. it is literally their job as a coder on a project with version control to get their code merged. if you take away their pain from merging broken code, you remove their need to do better. this is not to say that you should not train them how to do better when they don't know what they are doing wrong, only that you should do it for them.
    17
  2.  @drno87  nothing. this is how linus develops the linux kernel. he applies the pull, and if it breaks, he reverts it, and sends a message saying that it did not apply cleanly, please fix and send a new pull request. the problem is social, and to do with management buy in. testing only works if they all agree that breaking the tests for the stable api is a nono. distributed development only works if the same people accept that breaking the merge is as big a nono. but to enforce it you need someone high enough up the food chain or the community making sure that if you broke it, it is your problem.
    4
  3. ​ @echorises I would argue that while there is a component of tenure which is about generating new knowledge, if you are so dense that you cannot pass the surrounding context on to your students, you are not really competent to get tenure in the first place. it is also a well known and well documented fact that understanding a problem can be hard, but helping someone else understand it is even harder and more importantly a different skill set involved.
    3
  4. except that another commentator pointed out that writing a compiler was the keystone project for their cs degree, and how can you do that well without understanding and using version control, libraries and api's.
    2
  5. the point here is that there are a set of core technologies which are essential for being able to work on code in a modern context, most of which can e taught the basics of in less than an afternoon. structured programming used to be controversial, so was version control, and so is continuous integration. i would argue that you should not be able to graduate without being able to submit code, which implies knowing a language, producing a program, checking it into version control, and having it pass continuous integration. all of that can be taught in an afternoon using fizbuzz and the idea that you can spend four years learning advanced techniques without learning the basics of working in a modern high end environment should not be acceptable.
    2
  6. he specifically said that because git usage is endemic, not knowing it was a red flag, then went on to say that knowing a different vcs was ok, but not knowing any vcs and needing to be told everything not just about how to vcs, but also about why to vcs would basically push you to the bottom of the candidates list, with almost anyone else being better. a case can also be made that the same thing should be true for continuous integration.
    1
  7.  @silberwolfSR71  i wouldn't disagree in general, but it tends to coexist with lots of other red flags. for example, there are a large number of "qualified" programmers out there who not only cannot use any vcs, but also could not do fizzbuz without an ide, and have no idea if the build system generated by the ide can be used without the ide. i would suggest that a good programmer should be able to write a small program with only a text editor, create the automated build file, store it in a version control system, and then have the interviewer be able to check it out and build it on another machine. if the program was something small and simple like fizzbuz, this should only take about 15 minutes prior to the interview, and for most interviews you are waiting longer than that. think about the Israel passenger security vetting system as a comparison. anybody wanting to be able to go airside at any airport goes through security vetting. each level is designed to either determine you are not a risk, or moves you up another level for a more strict screening. by the time you are stopped at the airport for questioning you have already raised yourself to about level 15, and they are primarily asking to clear up points they could not dismiss without your active involvement. if you pass, you can then get on the plane. i had to help fill a post, and we got over 100 applicants, with full training given. most were completely unsuitable, but the top few still needed filtering, and things like attitude, and prior experience goes into that filtering. as theo said, if you get to that point and it is between an industry veteran with experience, and a new college grad with no knowledge of version control, you can guess who is higher up the list.
    1
  8.  @mikicerise6250  not quite, someone on the team need to know version control. if so they can become familiar enough with git in about an hour. most version control differences are under the hood, and mostly are not need to know, except after a major screw up, at which point you need an expert in whatever version control is used by your project. you cannot assume git, because some projects are old enough to be using something else.
    1
  9. ​ @ShootingUtah there is a reason why the compiler matters. most of the work in advancing programming in the last 50 years or so has shown that domain specific languages are key to problem solving. this is basically what you do when you create an api, you extend the language to be better able to talk about your problem. the compiler part gives you an idea of how your bad api's can make that solution harder to implement, and more importantly, why. as a side effect it also n3eds proficiency in so many other types of programming that you would be hard pressed to find an alternative which still gave a framework for teaching all of those other aspects.
    1
  10.  @echorises  i agree version control is to important and useful to only be used for programming. i would much rather have a repository of useful txt files handled with version control, instead of having microsoft word trying to mishandle multiple copies of a binary word document which has been modified by multiple people. git is just the best version control client we have. unfortunately, higher education has little to do with generating new knowledge. it is mostly a certificate mill used to generate enough income to pay for teachers and administrators to have a job. even worse, in higher level education a certain amount of teaching is forced upon post doctoral students without them being g8ven any teacher training, while professors are jumping through hoops trying to get external funding to pay for a very limited amount of research, with most of the time being used with students and funding hunts. worse still, until you get tenure, and thus don't need to worry about having a job next year, your actual research wil be constrained by the university to those non controversial bits of the subject that will help you get tenure. only after getting tenure are you free within the funding constraints to actually do any research you want in what little free time you are given. with the possible exception of japan, no country has yet produced a system where there is a part of the university which takes the pure research, funds getting it to the point where it is usable by industry, and then licenses the technology to industry to generate revenue to fund the part which takes the pure research and develops it. at that point, your tenured professors would actually be being paid to do pure research combined with developing existing research into stuff usable by industry, while the untenured ones could use the university development fund to find research which would be funded by the university, would help towards tenure, and would be passing knowledge to students. the post doctoral students would still split the time doing work which the professors had got funded combined with teaching. i would say it should not be possible to get your degree without having to get a teaching qualification as part of it, as so much of the time of professors and post docs is forced to be spent on teaching. as to producing students fit for industry, that has never been part of the goals of universities. with the exception of Germany, no country has a system of general education which is not designed with the intent of filtering out those not fit for an academic career, and basicaly throwing away the rest. germany does actually have a second path, dealing with some vocational qualifications. however most education is designed to take those unsuitable for academia and turn them into nice quiet sheeple, which we just cannot afford any longer.
    1
  11.  @NihongoWakannai  i think the point he was making is that free education applies to an increasingly small number of people in an increasingly small number of places, especially as you move to higher levels of education. outside of that context, you do incur debt or at least costs, so the degree in question needs to provide some value outside the road to tenure, which most degrees are not constructed to take into account.
    1