Ruby Certification Test

ruby-talk
21

>
>> It's interesting how the tone of this thread differs from previous
>> incantations. There used to be considerably more scoffing at the
>> notion
>> of a Ruby certification.
>
> Well, my first instinct was to get snarky, but the more I read, the
> more I
> realized that I shouldn't assume that other countries have the same
> employment culture as the U.S. - and, particularly, the U.S. in the
> Internet sector.
>
> I do like the opportunity to point out a great quote by Steve Yegge:
>
> "Certification is for the weak. It's something that flags you as a
> technician when you really want to be an engineer. If you want to be a
> television repairman, you can become certified in TV repair. If you
> want to
> work for Sony and design their next big-screen TV, then you clearly
> don't
> need a busy-working-adults course on how to repair the fugging
> things."
>
> http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/09/ten-tips-for-slightly-less-
> awful-resume.html
>
> --
> Jay Levitt |
> Boston, MA | My character doesn't like it when they
> Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.
> http://www.jay.fm | - Kristoffer
>
Actually, that's a horrible quote. The Japanese engineers who design
TVs and LCD monitors are full of certs and ISOs and stuff. One of my
in-laws is one of them.
In any country there exists the possibility for the truly brilliant
to do what they do without these things. But it is good to have them.
It is simply one way to show evidence of your abilities.

Hmm, I really go with James on this, this has been discussed on this
list and a huge majority agreed that certificates are a business way
to exploit a hype.

Now I cannot say how this is in Japan and I have overlooked that we
were indeed talking about a Japanese certification. My apologies if
what I think about the West World Certificates does not apply for you.
If certificates are indeed part of your culture than they are for sure
more than a business hype.

Notwithstanding I believe that certificates for Ruby - on a global
base - are a *very* bad idea.

Cheers
Robert

···

On 10/24/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 24, 2007, at 3:50 AM, Jay Levitt wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:02:17 +0900, James Britt wrote:

--
what do I think about Ruby?
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

22

No, No, Yes
The first No is a problem and I try to document my code a little bit
after I have released it, but I shall document it much more. We are
talking Class, Module and Traits :wink: level here, right?
The second No is a Must, I'd rather rewrite my code than to comment it.
If you cannot read one of my methods I have to rewrite it, not to comment it!
Actually I have to rewrite a lot of code, I know :(.
Well at least we agree about the tests, I feel BTW much more need to
comment my tests, seems to be a problem with my test code.
<snip>

Cheers
Robert

···

On 10/24/07, Peter Hickman <peter@semantico.com> wrote:

When we interview the only qualification that is acceptable as a
substitute for experience is a degree, and then only from a recent
graduate. Otherwise you will need to show some experience, preferably
contribution to some project so that we can examine your code in the
wild (you do document, comment and test your code don't you?)

--
what do I think about Ruby?
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

23

I went and got two certifications. I'm actually planning to get a
couple more. My existing certifications are in Java, XML, and
hypnotherapy (from the most stringent hypnosis certification program
there is). The certifications I'm planning are in Final Cut Studio Pro
and Adobe After Effects. I'm going to look into getting side work on
weekends doing editing and motion graphics. A certification's less
valuable than actual work experience, but more valuable than nothing.

I think the real reason for hostility against certifications has
absolutely nothing to do with their usefulness or non-usefulness. I
think they're useful, although less authoritative than they claim to
be. I think the reason people hate certifications is that an attempt
to be authoritative implies an attempt to be an authority, and for a
big fat beauraucracy to assert authority over independent programmers
is total BS. People who think it's **offensive** BS hate
certifications. I think it's **funny** BS, so I get them anyway, every
once in a while.

There is a third group of people, who **don't** think certifications
are BS. I think those people are wrong, and if there are more of them
on this list than in the past, that's probably a consequence of Ruby
becoming more mainstream, but I still think certifications are useful,
especially if they make you study and they ask difficult questions. If
it makes you learn the language in detail, it can be good. It was over
a year after getting my XML certification that I actually used XPath
in a real-life work situation, but when that time came, I did it from
memory with no problems at all. It was all still in there.

The number one reason I liked Rails when I first saw it is because I
had looked into getting a J2EE/JSP certification. They make you learn
**all** of the JSP APIs, and it's like this archaeological dig. You go
down a layer, there's a terrible API that you wouldn't be able to use
in real life. You go down another layer, there's an even worse API
that you wouldn't be able to use in real life for the same reasons,
plus additional reasons. Then you do it all again. There's this whole
sequence of terrible APIs stacked on top of each other, where Sun came
up with something, it sucked, and then they came up with something
completely different instead, which sucked only slightly less, but
still continued supporting the earlier thing, because they couldn't
admit it sucked, and they had customers on it. And the funny part is,
you don't just have to learn all these crap APIs. You also have to
learn Sun's excuses for them. I'm serious. Those are questions on the
exam.

As long as you actually think about what you're reading, studying for
the JSP cert is an incredible education in how to fuck up Web APIs
really, really badly.

(I think I'll blog this.)

···

--
Giles Bowkett

Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/

24

Well, I, uh, meant a "great quote" in that I knew when I posted it, I would
learn some very interesting facts about how wrong it was. Yeah.

···

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:30:54 +0900, John Joyce wrote:

Actually, that's a horrible quote. The Japanese engineers who design
TVs and LCD monitors are full of certs and ISOs and stuff. One of my
in-laws is one of them.

--
Jay Levitt |
Boston, MA | My character doesn't like it when they
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.
http://www.jay.fm | - Kristoffer

25

I hold a number of language certifications and none will make you a
programmer.

However, that said, IMO certification does force a "programmer" to study
corners of the language he might not have been used before. Many times
I've had an "Ah Haw" while looking at something that did not relate to
my daily programming needs.

So, certifications have value, and if a Ruby cert becomes available I
will probably STUDY and set for the exam.

Will it make me a better programmer? Maybe...

However, in the USA, certification hasn't been positive or negative for
me from a job search perspective.

Or, maybe it was negative on some of those interviews where I didn't get
hired:-)

Bill

26

I agree. The best place to find Ruby talent is probably on this list
and also the good people that have contributed to rubyforge (which I
have not, oh well :wink:

I've met many certified people that didn't know one thing from the
other when it really came down to it.

I will say, however, that the PE (professional engineer test) is
pretty good at ferreting out who knows bull crap and who knows what
they're doing. It's almost like Ruby Quiz, in a way.

Todd

···

On 10/24/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:

Notwithstanding I believe that certificates for Ruby - on a global
base - are a *very* bad idea.

Cheers
Robert

27

Once you got the third, couldn't you just make people think that you've
shown them the other two?

Sorry, weak joke, I know, no sleep.

···

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:49:07 +0900, Giles Bowkett wrote:

My existing certifications are in Java, XML, and
hypnotherapy (from the most stringent hypnosis certification program
there is)

--
Jay Levitt |
Boston, MA | My character doesn't like it when they
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.
http://www.jay.fm | - Kristoffer

28

No sleep??? But than Gilles *can* help you :slight_smile:
R.

···

On 10/24/07, Jay Levitt <jay+news@jay.fm> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:49:07 +0900, Giles Bowkett wrote:

> My existing certifications are in Java, XML, and
> hypnotherapy (from the most stringent hypnosis certification program
> there is)

Once you got the third, couldn't you just make people think that you've
shown them the other two?

Sorry, weak joke, I know, no sleep.

--
what do I think about Ruby?
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

29

Bill Plummer wrote:

Or, maybe it was negative on some of those interviews where I didn't get
hired:-)

Think of all the people who didn't get interviewed because they weren't certified. :slight_smile:

30

> > My existing certifications are in Java, XML, and
> > hypnotherapy (from the most stringent hypnosis certification program
> > there is)
>
> Once you got the third, couldn't you just make people think that you've
> shown them the other two?
>
> Sorry, weak joke, I know, no sleep.
>
No sleep??? But than Gilles *can* help you :slight_smile:

You are getting sleepy...

···

--
Giles Bowkett

Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/

31

> > > My existing certifications are in Java, XML, and
> > > hypnotherapy (from the most stringent hypnosis certification program
> > > there is)
> >
> > Once you got the third, couldn't you just make people think that you've
> > shown them the other two?
> >
> > Sorry, weak joke, I know, no sleep.
> >
> No sleep??? But than Gilles *can* help you :slight_smile:

You are getting sleepy...

No, not me it was h......

···

On 10/24/07, Giles Bowkett <gilesb@gmail.com> wrote:

--
Giles Bowkett

Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/

--
what do I think about Ruby?
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

32

The real reason certifications are weak is because they tend to only test encyclopedic knowledge.
The test and its backing research is what determines the value of the test.
Good testing will define what the test can determine.
A good programming test would simply include analysis, design, and bugstomping.
This is a language test that simply tests your understanding of the grammar, usage, and vocabulary of the language.
Most tests of any topic avoid subjective parts because it is difficult to apply metrics to them accurately or meaningfully.
That's not bad, just incomplete.

These tests are good in that they check knowledge of the details of a subject. They don't test your skill at applying the knowledge.

I support the idea of certification/testing if it the testing is understood for what it is.
We all know that A+ certs don't mean you are good at troubleshooting hardware, because the test doesn't actually physically involve hardware or software!
I've been to good interviews where they created a battery of activities using real software and hardware with only you and a clock to figure out what's wrong. It was a good test. The only measure of success or failure was you versus yourself, the clock and compared with the other participants.

We'll see what the Ruby test turns out to be like. I have high hopes for it though. The language designers have integrity and are not doing any of this to get rich, just to promote and validate their creation, it's a fairly natural step. And if nothing else, the fee money will certainly go towards a cause we can all appreciate... Ruby!

33

Well Ruby has been proven to be different in so many ways, maybe it
will here to.
I remain skeptical before I see it though.

R.

···

On 10/24/07, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondanger@gmail.com> wrote:

We'll see what the Ruby test turns out to be like. I have high hopes
for it though. The language designers have integrity and are not
doing any of this to get rich, just to promote and validate their
creation, it's a fairly natural step. And if nothing else, the fee
money will certainly go towards a cause we can all appreciate... Ruby!

--
what do I think about Ruby?
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

34

John Joyce wrote:

The real reason certifications are weak is because they tend to only
test encyclopedic knowledge.

There is another reason that is more soft and perhaps much more
important. Certification is made to encyclopedically register one as a
professional commodity for large profittaking enterprises, most of the
likes of which are better organized as public utilities with extensive
public oversight rather than as private enterprises. If we had real
free market the drive would be toward a more rich professional community
that knew itself more extensively rather than just registering people as
items in databases and playing lotto with their lives. Real free market
does work if you don't short-circuit it with corporate oligarchy like we
have in the U.S. I think the Engineering community could use more small
private concerns, and let the M$ and the Sun Corps become public
utilities with mandatory and well subsidized public oversight. Of
course that will work better if you get everyone to stop making cars and
start working for only 20/hours a week in their day jobs.

xc

···

The test and its backing research is what determines the value of the test.
Good testing will define what the test can determine.
A good programming test would simply include analysis, design, and
bugstomping.
This is a language test that simply tests your understanding of the
grammar, usage, and vocabulary of the language.
Most tests of any topic avoid subjective parts because it is difficult
to apply metrics to them accurately or meaningfully.
That's not bad, just incomplete.

These tests are good in that they check knowledge of the details of a
subject. They don't test your skill at applying the knowledge.

I support the idea of certification/testing if it the testing is
understood for what it is.
We all know that A+ certs don't mean you are good at troubleshooting
hardware, because the test doesn't actually physically involve hardware
or software!
I've been to good interviews where they created a battery of activities
using real software and hardware with only you and a clock to figure out
what's wrong. It was a good test. The only measure of success or failure
was you versus yourself, the clock and compared with the other
participants.

We'll see what the Ruby test turns out to be like. I have high hopes for
it though. The language designers have integrity and are not doing any
of this to get rich, just to promote and validate their creation, it's a
fairly natural step. And if nothing else, the fee money will certainly
go towards a cause we can all appreciate... Ruby!

--
The only sustainable organizing methods focus not on scale,
but on good design of the functional unit,
not on winning battles, but on preservation.

35

Xeno Campanoli wrote:

There is another reason that is more soft and perhaps much more
important. Certification is made to encyclopedically register one as a
professional commodity for large profittaking enterprises, most of the
likes of which are better organized as public utilities with extensive
public oversight rather than as private enterprises. If we had real
free market the drive would be toward a more rich professional community
that knew itself more extensively rather than just registering people as
items in databases and playing lotto with their lives. Real free market
does work if you don't short-circuit it with corporate oligarchy like we
have in the U.S. I think the Engineering community could use more small
private concerns, and let the M$ and the Sun Corps become public
utilities with mandatory and well subsidized public oversight. Of
course that will work better if you get everyone to stop making cars and
start working for only 20/hours a week in their day jobs.

*plonk*

36

Wow!!

···

On 10/24/07, Xeno Campanoli <xcampanoli@gmail.com> wrote:

John Joyce wrote:
> The real reason certifications are weak is because they tend to only
> test encyclopedic knowledge.

There is another reason that is more soft and perhaps much more
important. Certification is made to encyclopedically register one as a
professional commodity for large profittaking enterprises, most of the
likes of which are better organized as public utilities with extensive
public oversight rather than as private enterprises. If we had real
free market the drive would be toward a more rich professional community
that knew itself more extensively rather than just registering people as
items in databases and playing lotto with their lives. Real free market
does work if you don't short-circuit it with corporate oligarchy like we
have in the U.S. I think the Engineering community could use more small
private concerns, and let the M$ and the Sun Corps become public
utilities with mandatory and well subsidized public oversight. Of
course that will work better if you get everyone to stop making cars and
start working for only 20/hours a week in their day jobs.

37

> We'll see what the Ruby test turns out to be like. I have high hopes
> for it though. The language designers have integrity and are not
> doing any of this to get rich, just to promote and validate their
> creation, it's a fairly natural step. And if nothing else, the fee
> money will certainly go towards a cause we can all appreciate... Ruby!

Well Ruby has been proven to be different in so many ways, maybe it
will here to.
I remain skeptical before I see it though.

I think the point about it being a Japanese certification is a very
valid point. AFAIK Japanese society is a bit more serious about those
things. Technical certs I like as educational experiences (yadda yadda
yadda previous post etc.) but there isn't really anything in place to
make the system honest, at least not over here on the Western half of
the globe.

···

--
Giles Bowkett

Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/

38

> There is another reason that is more soft and perhaps much more
> important. Certification is made to encyclopedically register one as a
> professional commodity for large profittaking enterprises, most of the
> likes of which are better organized as public utilities with extensive
> public oversight rather than as private enterprises. If we had real
> free market the drive would be toward a more rich professional community
> that knew itself more extensively rather than just registering people as
> items in databases and playing lotto with their lives. Real free market
> does work if you don't short-circuit it with corporate oligarchy like we
> have in the U.S. I think the Engineering community could use more small
> private concerns, and let the M$ and the Sun Corps become public
> utilities with mandatory and well subsidized public oversight. Of
> course that will work better if you get everyone to stop making cars and
> start working for only 20/hours a week in their day jobs.

Wow!!

I would be down with only working 20 hours a week. I'd question the
rest of it, though.

···

--
Giles Bowkett

Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com/

39

Around here it's almost impossible to earn a living working 20
hours/week. Either they pay high but expect you to work almost 24/7 or
they pay so low that you have to work almost 24/7. Positions where you
get anything else are quite rare.

Yet most of the useful work is done in China almost for free so most
of the stuff people do here for living is useless nonsense. Yay, the
awesome free market.

Thanks

Michal

···

On 25/10/2007, Giles Bowkett <gilesb@gmail.com> wrote:

I would be down with only working 20 hours a week. I'd question the
rest of it, though.