|The stupid question is the question not asked|
BUU wrote: I fail to see why using 'higher level' terms is symptomatic of a lack of ability.
It may not indicate lack of ability, but oftimes, it is often indicative of communication problems. One company I worked at had a programmer who would deal with problems like this:
Customer: Why didn't I get my reports? Programmer: I just checked and you got a SOC7 in GLJ0430R and I'm going to have to reload the dataset and start from the top.
That programmer was technically correct. Of course, he didn't answer the customer's question. Learning to target your message to your audience is important. I would have simply said "looks like we got some bad data. I'm going to fix it and have the report to you in an hour."
Now, does the previous person have a "lack of ability"? I remember one professor who said "if you can't put it in writing, you don't know it." Quite often, if I find that I can't explain something in clear terms that anyone can understand, I really don't understand what I'm trying to explain.
What's a SOC7? Well, it's a SOC7. It's...it's... it's a data exception. What is a data exception? Well, it's, uh, you know...
You see my point? If I can't explain something clearly, I probably don't understand it. Of course, I may understand it very well, but simply be a poor communicator. I tend to be suspicious of those who want to use high-falutin' terms.
Hope that helps :)
Join the Perlmonks Setiathome Group or just click on the the link and check out our stats.
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Second rate programmers and my confession