It’s effectively a declaration that “programmers” are a different class of people in possession of some unquantifiable gift, and it’s beneath them to justify their value. The costumes may change, but my 2011 commentary remains remarkably relevant. Of course, there are a few categories that certain countries continue to dominate: Disqualified for actually turning me on. I’m forced to admit that again this year, there are a few outfits I actually don’t mind: Overall hotness trumps the cheesy leaves.No need for a full play-by-play; we can skip straight to the awards. Slightly overplayed the hockey theme by turning her vagina into the goal… And for hedging her bets by qualifying for the hat-hobbling category. More nudity going on here than you notice at first glance. A little more skin next year and you’ve got a chance, Kazakhstan.We can argue about the extent to which an employer should balance hiring for existing skills and hiring for potential to learn, but you can’t claim the latter unless you can point to prior success at learning new skills.

technorati blog finder adult dating-59

There’s always a terrific slight of hand going on when software developers try to draw analogies to other fields.

Blue-collar credentials and being treated like a unique, creative, and highly-paid professional just aren’t compatible.

“Programmers” are the architects and structural engineers who design the buildings; they get programming languages and frameworks and IDEs to hammer the nails.

I have no doubt that the industry is full of coders banging out one CRUD app after another, but their work bears a lot more relation to architects customizing a house design to a particular site (or, a better analogy, 19th-century railroad engineers applying the standard truss designs to design bridge after bridge) than it does to contractors framing house after house based on the designs they’re handed.

The exceptions—coders who really want nothing more than to follow some formula and take no responsibility for the result—are exactly who interviewers are trying to weed out.

Of course, there are carpenters who are creative craftsmen of the first order.

Among other things: I’ve never met anyone in the software industry who is happy with the hiring process, and that includes everyone who’s designed the process.

Nobody seems to have a solution to separating the potential stars from the mehs, and anyone who claims they do either doesn’t have enough perspective to understand the difficulty of the problem (young interviewers who have been trained in one particular hiring style seem to be blessed with the arrogance of blind faith), or they’ve perfected the art of hiring the mediocre (a sufficiently rigorous process can probably rule out almost all the disastrous hires, but will likely also lose a few stars…and it’s finding the stars that is the problem).

Given all of the above, the true subtext of this “joke” is that calling yourself a programmer entitles you to a job.

But the really galling part is that the “calling yourself a programmer” bit .

Pouting that interviews suck without suggesting any improvements is just childish, and doubly so if you’re complaining not about the bizarre “puzzle question” or “culture fit” interviews, but about being questioned on knowledge and experience.