Hi
Is there any Ruby certification ?
Thanks
Meghanath
I haven't heard of one, but maybe there should be, I think at the
moment industry are just trusting that people have Ruby/Rails
experience.
There are a few university courses that now have Ruby on Rails content.
Daniel.
···
On 03/11/05, Chintakrindi Meghanath <Meghanath@nextlinx.com> wrote:
Is there any Ruby certification ?
Chintakrindi Meghanath wrote:
Hi
Is there any Ruby certification ?
I think quite few here are 'certified'.
Seriously, there are no Ruby certification programs (that I've heard of at least), and I hope it stays that way.
James
···
--
http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
Chintakrindi Meghanath wrote:
Hi
Is there any Ruby certification ?
Thanks
Meghanath
Certification tends to get pushed as a 'good thing' by people selling certification or by programmers who don't have the skills. There are companies who will certify Perl programmers, which was news to myself and many, many Perl programmers. None of whom are certified.
I agree. I think the best way to know a language is to have a little
search around on the internet and find a good book... then practice
practice practice. A good programmer should be able to change from one
language to another with very little effort, I think its very possible
to learn a language by looking at some programming cookbook examples.
However, if someone is very new to programming then Ruby is quite a
nice/easy language to learn, and so beginners may want to learn
programming concepts with Ruby... a course/certification may be good
for them.
Also, in my opinion, i think people should be certified on programming
concepts, such as Agile and Web Application Programming. Certificates
could say: "Certified in Agile and Web Application Programming", the
course that they are on could then teach Ruby (or J2EE or other).
I guess you could say I see both good and bad parts in certification.
Daniel.
···
On 03/11/05, Peter Hickman <peter@semantico.com> wrote:
Certification tends to get pushed as a 'good thing' by people selling
certification or by programmers who don't have the skills. There are
companies who will certify Perl programmers, which was news to myself
and many, many Perl programmers. None of whom are certified.
I don't think that's what people mean when they tell you you're
"certifiable", James.
···
On 11/3/05, James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:
I think quite few here are 'certified'.
Peter Hickman wrote:
Certification tends to get pushed as a 'good thing' by people selling
certification or by programmers who don't have the skills. There are
companies who will certify Perl programmers, which was news to myself
and many, many Perl programmers. None of whom are certified.
The idea of programming certification seems a stretch for me to imagine
as well. And I come from an sysadmin from back when Novell
certification started becoming a measuring stick in the early 1990's.
Only to be replaced by the dreaded MCSE certification from Microsoft.
The market got so saturated with "paper MCSE's" that the title
eventually became meaningless. Then once Linux started catching on all
of these Red Hat Certified Engineer training programs starting popping
up.
Someone who takes collegiate courses and earns a degree in computer
programming should be judged based on such qualifications. Someone who
hasn't earned a degree in such a field could be judged on sample code
from their projects they have contributed to. If the sample code is
owned by a former employer then some other self-maintained portfolio
could be presented.
To me I think that certifications are just tangible life-preservers
that PHB's performing interviews are looking for to help them out. It
reminds me of my first boss at a computer manufacturing plant. He had
over ten years worth of hands-on experience using everything under
God's creation and had memorized practically every factoid one could
imagine. But he couldn't pass any certification exams that the company
paid for. Then he hired someone who had just come out of a tech
training school with a certification. That guy could barely turn on a
computer since he had no hands-on experience...
In article <436A1E1A.7070901@neurogami.com>,
···
James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:
Chintakrindi Meghanath wrote:
Hi
Is there any Ruby certification ?
I think quite few here are 'certified'.
Seriously, there are no Ruby certification programs (that I've heard of
at least), and I hope it stays that way.
Agreed. Certification is just a scheme for testing companies to make
money.
Phil
Daniel Lewis wrote:
However, if someone is very new to programming then Ruby is quite a
nice/easy language to learn, and so beginners may want to learn
programming concepts with Ruby... a course/certification may be good
for them.
Now courses I have no problem with, they are a very good idea to get people up to speed. However the best you should get from such a course is a certificate of attendance.
Daniel Lewis wrote:
Certification tends to get pushed as a 'good thing' by people selling
certification or by programmers who don't have the skills. There are
companies who will certify Perl programmers, which was news to myself
and many, many Perl programmers. None of whom are certified.I agree. I think the best way to know a language is to have a little
search around on the internet and find a good book... then practice
practice practice. A good programmer should be able to change from one
language to another with very little effort, I think its very possible
to learn a language by looking at some programming cookbook examples.
I have a hard time believing that someone experienced with only C and Java, however good they are with them, can really learn Lisp or Haskell by looking at some examples.
Syntax, maybe, but, that's relatively superficial. What's common is people who know language X try to pick up language Y, and get just good enough that they can now write language X programs using language Y syntax. (The "I can code in Java in any language" syndrome.)
However, if someone is very new to programming then Ruby is quite a
nice/easy language to learn, and so beginners may want to learn
programming concepts with Ruby... a course/certification may be good
for them.
An advantage to a decent Ruby course might be to get people used to thinking in terms of blocks, dynamic method invocation, open classes, and assorted Ruby concepts that may not have clear (or any) counterparts in other languages already known to the student.
Part of learning a new language is unlearning habits acquired while using another language.
But certification as such is of even less value than simply calculating one's Ruby number, and far less entertaining. Unless, as suggested, you're in the certification business.
James Britt
···
On 03/11/05, Peter Hickman <peter@semantico.com> wrote:
--
http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
Lyle Johnson wrote:
···
On 11/3/05, James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com> wrote:
I think quite few here are 'certified'.
I don't think that's what people mean when they tell you you're
"certifiable", James.
Oh indeed. And, luckily, not alone.
James
--
http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
I've found it very valuable to give interviewees small programming problems right there in the interview. For example, write a function that prints all possible permutations of a string, or that translates a string into Pig Latin, etc. It really can quickly distinguish the great programmers from the good programmers from the pretenders. I like to give the interviewee a laptop with the programming language installed, and ideally they will quickly produce a working program. Second best is slowly produce a working program. If they're not good enough to write something that works, they are probably not good enough for my purposes. Extra points for style, innovative approaches and especially efficient algorithms.
If the candidate can't actually write software, they're no good. So you might as well establish that right up front.
steve
···
On Nov 3, 2005, at 12:22 PM, gregarican wrote:
Someone who takes collegiate courses and earns a degree in computer
programming should be judged based on such qualifications. Someone who
hasn't earned a degree in such a field could be judged on sample code
from their projects they have contributed to. If the sample code is
owned by a former employer then some other self-maintained portfolio
could be presented.
I'd say certification in Ruby would be close to worthless anyway. The culture of
any shop that would use Ruby as a primary development platform wouldn't lend
itself to pinhead hiring practices that place certification ahead of
experience.
The best way to learn would be find an open source project (any of the many
Ruby/Rails components) and start contributing. Pick any project and offer to
help. It'll take you a while, but you'll be surprised how fast you'll come up
to speed by interacting with the other committers. It's like having a set of
personal coaches.
And having that on your resume will go a lot further than having certification
anyway. Plus, you'll actually become a good Ruby programmer.
-kevin
Kevin Bedell
http://www.kbedell.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- Albert Einstein
I have a hard time believing that someone experienced with only C and
Java, however good they are with them, can really learn Lisp or Haskell
by looking at some examples.
But if you know the concepts of declarative programming, then lisp
will be easy. If you know the concepts of functional programming then
Haskell will be easy. My point was merely on a syntax level. Once you
have the syntax, then people can delve into the other concepts. For
example, I'd like to know how Ruby can work functionally, I'm not
rushing into learning that straight away, I want to learn the
syntax/key-words first.
Part of learning a new language is unlearning habits acquired while
using another language.
Yessum, it took me a while to grasp Pascal after learning Visual
Basic, C and C++. (which reminds me, i really don't like Pascal).
I picked up Prolog quite easily though, and thats entirely different to C/C++.
But certification as such is of even less value than simply calculating
one's Ruby number, and far less entertaining. Unless, as suggested,
you're in the certification business.
Certifications are an easy way for some people to get into the
industry. But I think experience counts for a lot more than a
certificate.
In article <396C5F57-A162-4FE1-BBB7-747B834F489E@neosynapse.net>,
--Apple-Mail-3-260895979
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=US-ASCII;
delsp=yes;
format=flowedSomeone who takes collegiate courses and earns a degree in computer
programming should be judged based on such qualifications. Someone who
hasn't earned a degree in such a field could be judged on sample code
from their projects they have contributed to. If the sample code is
owned by a former employer then some other self-maintained portfolio
could be presented.I've found it very valuable to give interviewees small programming
problems right there in the interview. For example, write a function
that prints all possible permutations of a string, or that translates
a string into Pig Latin, etc. It really can quickly distinguish the
great programmers from the good programmers from the pretenders. I
like to give the interviewee a laptop with the programming language
installed,
This is important. You're doing a good thing. I've had interviews where
they ask me to write some function (usually it's in C) and they want it
done on a whiteboard. As someone who likes to try things out with the
compiler (or irb in the case of Ruby) I find the whiteboard approach very
frustrating. Also, since we code by typing not writing (on a board) I
suspect that very different neural pathways are involved. We do
diagramming on whiteboards, but we actually code using an editor.
I've run into trouble often enough with those whiteboard programmming
questions that I plan to take my own laptop to interviews in the future.
Phil
···
Steven Arnold <stevena@neosynapse.net> wrote:
On Nov 3, 2005, at 12:22 PM, gregarican wrote:
My most recent interviewer (for a job I landed, using Ruby), asked me some programming questions. Now that I've been on the job for a bit, I can tell you they were issues right out of current projects. What was really interesting is that they were great discussion questions, so we could get to talking a little about them. Once you get a programmer talking about their craft, you can listen for what you're after.
Now that I know the interview a little better and some of the other responses to his questions I can say that's exactly how it worked.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Nov 3, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Steven Arnold wrote:
I've found it very valuable to give interviewees small programming problems right there in the interview.
Daniel Lewis wrote:
I have a hard time believing that someone experienced with only C and
Java, however good they are with them, can really learn Lisp or Haskell
by looking at some examples.But if you know the concepts of declarative programming, then lisp
will be easy. If you know the concepts of functional programming then
Haskell will be easy.
That sounds very much like begging the question.
Yes, if you understand the concepts of functional programming, then learning a functional programming language should be reasonably straightforward.
My point was merely on a syntax level. Once you
have the syntax, then people can delve into the other concepts. For
example, I'd like to know how Ruby can work functionally, I'm not
rushing into learning that straight away, I want to learn the
syntax/key-words first.
JavaScript is an unjustly maligned language. It has fair amount of Lisp-y qualities. It has closures. It has (more or less) open 'classes'. Yet 99% of the JavaScript one encounters looks suspiciously like C or Java. Most JavaScript books I've seen don't even *mention* 'prototype', let alone give examples using it. And if they do mention it, they don't do a good job of explaining the implications. So, people (well, Java/C/VB coders mainly) look at it, make a mental note, then never use it because it doesn't readily map to an known concept.
Folks go and learn the syntax that is already familiar, and don't learn the language itself.
Folks at RubyConf 2005 saw at least half the crowd go off to listen to Chad Fowler and Jim Weirich talk about continuations. The two did a really good job of explaining what they are and how they work (and Thanks! I learned a lot). But for those of us who are not already experienced in using continuations, there's still a fair amount of work to do to fully understand when and where and why continuations would make for an appropriate solution to some programming task. I'd venture that most of the audience left knowing continuation syntax, but far fewer could make practical use of them. That's not the fault of Chad and Jim. Skill to do comes of doing, and even then you may need guides to poke you with a stick until you reach enlightenment.
And that's my beef with many certification programs and tutorials. They tend to be syntax-centric. You don't really learn the language; you learn how to construct syntacticly-correct scripts to accomplish tasks without errors (which, truthfully, is often all some people need to know).
Perhaps the best way to learn Ruby is to post code to ruby-talk and invite public criticism. You'll get enlightened soon enough.
James
···
--
http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
Assuming we're on the verge of a big boom in Ruby jobs, shouldn't
there be a place where employers can verify a candidates reputation?
I'm thinking a testimonial or trust-based system of some sort.
When the market for Java programmers exploded there were huge numbers
of highly (un)qualified people getting hired to do Java and causing
all sorts of grief to everyone involved. Lots of them had (or claimed
to have) certification.
obie, who believes in learning from history
···
On 11/3/05, Daniel Lewis <danieljohnlewis@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a hard time believing that someone experienced with only C and
> Java, however good they are with them, can really learn Lisp or Haskell
> by looking at some examples.
But if you know the concepts of declarative programming, then lisp
will be easy. If you know the concepts of functional programming then
Haskell will be easy. My point was merely on a syntax level. Once you
have the syntax, then people can delve into the other concepts. For
example, I'd like to know how Ruby can work functionally, I'm not
rushing into learning that straight away, I want to learn the
syntax/key-words first.> Part of learning a new language is unlearning habits acquired while
> using another language.
Yessum, it took me a while to grasp Pascal after learning Visual
Basic, C and C++. (which reminds me, i really don't like Pascal).
I picked up Prolog quite easily though, and thats entirely different to C/C++.> But certification as such is of even less value than simply calculating
> one's Ruby number, and far less entertaining. Unless, as suggested,
> you're in the certification business.
Certifications are an easy way for some people to get into the
industry. But I think experience counts for a lot more than a
certificate.
James Edward Gray II wrote:
···
On Nov 3, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Steven Arnold wrote:
I've found it very valuable to give interviewees small programming problems right there in the interview.
My most recent interviewer (for a job I landed, using Ruby), asked me some programming questions. Now that I've been on the job for a bit, I can tell you they were issues right out of current projects.
Which is a slick technique: Ask potential employees to solve your current code problems.
birds.kill!( stone )
James
--
http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
Obie Fernandez wrote:
Assuming we're on the verge of a big boom in Ruby jobs, shouldn't
there be a place where employers can verify a candidates reputation?
I'm thinking a testimonial or trust-based system of some sort.
Isn't that what a job interview is for?
If a company does not already have someone skilled enough to judge a candidate's Ruby skills, then they should go search the ruby-talk archives and see how often this person posted questions, and answered questions from others.
James