---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A4D0E770230; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 10:45:36 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <7.00CC3015@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:15:25 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 7926 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:15:19 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 7001; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:13:41 -0500 Received: from embedinc.com [68.162.221.141] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:13:40 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by embedinc.com Received: from 192.168.0.3 (main) by mail.embedinc.com ; 2004 JAN 29 13:15:09 EST References: <2193429B07D9914D97216EBBAA6AB8BD1A0509@whitlam.corp.gli.com.au> <5.2.0.9.2.20040129073858.01554480@mail.cedar.net> <5.2.0.9.2.20040129124239.015f7178@mail.cedar.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <000d01c3e693$98693ac0$0300a8c0@main> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:13:27 -0500 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Olin Lathrop Subject: Re: [PIC:] Process To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856300 Dave VanHorn wrote: >> This isn't what you wanted to hear, but frankly, if you've been >> coding for a while and you haven't already developed your own idea >> of how to do it carefully and right you never will. This isn't >> meant as an insult, just a true belief on my part. I'm going to >> catch a lot of heat for this, but my advice is to find something >> else to do that you are truly good at. > > Hmm.. It sounds like you're saying that one can't improve, and I have > to reject that. > I can always get better.. I didn't say people can't improve. Bad experienced coders can get better, but never good in my opinion. That's because the root cause is how their mental processes work and how they think about the world. I don't think that can be changed. Please understand that I'm not saying one type of thought process is inherently better, just suited to different tasks. The opposite capability is to react quickly and well most of the time to unexpected events. This is useful for some tasks where the deliberate make sure you understand it and think it all thru method doesn't work. If you're the former type person then you'll never be really good at software, and you should find something to do where your thought patterns are an asset instead of a liability. Just like lots of people may enjoy a casual game of shooting hoops, the vast majority of people aren't suited to be NBA players and would be better off trying to be something else. I think there are more potential good coders out there than potential NBA players, but for some reason people have more of a problem with this concept when applied to mental capabilities instead of physical. ***************************************************************** Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts (978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. .