When is the c++ learning curve going to end?

[Blessman11]

After reading this article: http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/18/the-seven-stages-of-programming/

I have realized that i am at the "delusional stage" (stage 4/7) of programming though I'm desperately trying to reach the supposed "methodological stage" (stage 5/7). Apparently using UML is the key to this but any advice?

Additional note:
My c++ programming age is 11 months. I'm feeling at bit discouraged since I thought I would have conquered c++ by now, hence the "delusional stage"

[jsmith]

The C++ learning curve will never end, not even for the most experienced programmers.

I don't quite agree with UML being solution to obtaining level 5 status. It just means coming up with your own repeatable formula for success. Does writing UML diagrams first, then coding work best for you? Does an XP methodology work best for you?

[ModShop]

lol, dont follow those stages like fact. Just like everything else, no matter how much C++ you learn, there will always be more. However, as you go along, things, in general, will get MUCH easier.

[ascii]

How can you know that you're in stage four? You can only know you were in a stage until you are two stages above it, so you must at least be pragmatic xD

[ultifinitus]

I'm level 11.

Problem?

[kfmfe04]

Blessman11 wrote:

My c++ programming age is 11 months.

if you were an experienced programmer in another language before coming to C++, you would be an average C++ noob right now

jsmith wrote:

The C++ learning curve will never end, not even for the most experienced programmers.

I wonder how many people on these boards realize this truth, maybe 5%?

[lnk2019]

Sadly, never....

[z05DSL3A]

jsmith wrote:

The C++ learning curve will never end, not even for the most experienced programmers.

+1

kfmfe04 wrote:

I wonder how many people on these boards realize this truth, maybe 5%?

Probably less than that.

[kbw]

That's a very interesting article.

UML is an OO design tool. If you're designing and implementing OO systems, you almost certainly want to design them first; and in that way UML is useful.

You should understand that not all programming is Object Oriented. Every tool has its place.

And finally, the learning curve never ends. You have to wary of becoming so knowledgeable and experienced that you become intrenched in what you know and have done.

[lnk2019]

kbw wrote:

And finally, the learning curve never ends. You have to wary of becoming so knowledgeable and experienced that you become intrenched in what you know and have done.

The more I've learned about programming the more I've have come to understand this to be true.

Programming these days has become less and less to do with the manipulation of the actual language itself but the A.P.I.'s the language has access to. These A.P.I.'s are constantly changing and evolving (usually for the better).

I've started a new project regarding Audio I/O and I've been diving into all the literature I can find regarding the various methods and tools that I have access to. I have noticed that over the last few years technologies have changed, and thus the A.P.I.'s have changed to cope.

In my opinion learning and being able to learn new techniques that are being released, are vital skills a programmer must posses, so much so I believe a programmer does 50/50 of both at any given time.

[quirkyusername]

Life isn't an RPG, there is no max level.

[moorecm]

I wonder how many people on these boards realize this truth, maybe 5%?

Just like many skills in life, the better you get, the more you know where you really stand. It's natural to think you're good at something at first and to later realize that you weren't as good as you thought.

[Blessman11]

thanks for the advice

[anonymous23323124]

kfmfe wrote:

jsmith wrote
The C++ learning curve will never end, not even for the most experienced programmers.

I wonder how many people on these boards realize this truth, maybe 5%?

For me, it was really these boards that taught me that. And indeed continue to do so. But then these boards also do a great job providing kinetic energy so we can all continue moving up the slope :P

Life isn't an RPG

LOL! Not everyone realises that either :p

[Maese909]

I would love to hear what people such as sergey brin, larry page, bill gates, steve jobs, etc. would say about that article with regard to themselves..

[Ikaron]

With this unfortunate vagueness comes the observation that you can only recognize a stage when you are two stages above that stage. Thus, the transcendent programmer will never truly know he is transcendent (although he will suspect it)

Except with this logic you'll never have to recognize or even suspect the transcendent stage to know you're there. If you can regonize the 5th stage, then by the complex formula of 5 + 2 = x you must be to some capacity at the 7th stage. *eye roll*

Edit: Another way one could put it is that realizing stage 5 implies stage 7, so if you can prove you realize stage 5, then that implies you must be at stage 7. :B

[ascii]

I think you're overthinking it...

[Intrexa]

The +2 rule also means that you are inept at ever really gauging yourself, because if you think you recognize stage 5, that could really mean you are on stage 5, because you can't be trusted in actually knowing what you recognize.

[ascii]

Well the idea with the +2 rule is that you recognize that you were in that stage at some point, not that you are. If you can recognize that you were in stage five, then you know that you are now in stage seven.

[Intrexa]

"you can only recognize a stage when you are two stages above that stage", If I say I recognize stage 5, then there is a chance that I do not recognize what it is that I do not recognize. The "I don't see it, so it's not there." I don't know what it is I don't know, the dunning kruger effect. I say I recognize stage 5, but because I am not at stage 7, I can't recognize stage 5, so I am not able to say what is stage 5, and anywhere I say I recognize it should be suspect.