 do the same thing over and over
again. And there's a threshold of skill required before you can automate some
classes of things; and you also need a clear understanding of the task, to see
precisely which aspects are mechanical, and which aspects are configurable. It
pretty quickly gets into compsci research. And sometimes it's not worth the
effort (it can take a _lot_ of effort.)

But if you've ever called a method twice, instead of writing the code twice,
then you have done some of it.

I feel that your question "start to make sense" suggests your thinking is all-
or-nothing. Does _no_ aspect of programming make sense to you - or do some
"trivial" aspects make sense but they "don't count"? Does a print statement
make sense to you, to some extent? Does a loop make sense to you? There's a
continuum of mastery. If you only acknowledge perfect and complete mastery as
"mastery", then you won't feel any satisfaction in mastery of one small bit of
it. And without the confidence and encouragement of that success, it's very
hard to be motivated to continue. (oh yeah, plus, of course, it's impossible
to have perfect and complete mastery of programming anyway, for Turing's
reason.)

------
patio11
It took me a long, long time until I became reasonably confident that most
problems would eventually succumb to my programming ability. Probably almost
twenty years from when I wrote my first program, or a few years after college.

I can't write code on my own, though -- unless the problem is trivial and the
APIs I'm using I know like the back of my hand, I _need_ an Internet
connection to do it.

Part of this issue is possibly that competent people are disproportionately
stalked by the worry that they're secretly incompetent.

~~~
donaq
That is interesting. The experience has been almost the opposite for me. When
I first started programming, it did not take me long to start "getting it",
and I was very confident that there was no programming problem I could not
solve. As the years went by, I've noticed that my confidence has decreased to
the point where I am almost certain that there is no problem I _can_ solve
(besides the most trivial ones
do the same thing over and all over 
 again. And there's a brink of skill required before you can automate some 
 class of thing; and you also need a absolved sympathy of the task, to see 
 precisely which aspects are mechanical, and which aspects are configurable. It 
 reasonably quickly gets into compsci research. And sometimes it's not worth the 
 campaign (it can take a _ lot _ of effort .) 

 But if you've ever called a method acting twice, instead of writing the code doubly, 
 then you have done some of it. 

 I feel that your question " start to make common sense " suggests your thinking is all- 
 or - nothing. Does _ no _ expression of programming make sense to you - or do some 
 " fiddling " aspects make sense but they " don't count "? Does a print statement 
 make sense to you, to some extent? Does a loop make sense to you? There's a 
 continuum of mastery. If you only acknowledge perfect and complete mastery as 
 " command ", then you won't feel any satisfaction in domination of one humble bit of 
 it. And without the confidence and encouragement of that achiever, it's very 
 hard to be motivate to continue. (oh yeah, plus, of course, it's impossible 
 to have arrant and complete mastery of programming anyway, for Turing's 
 reason .) 

 ------ 
 patio11 
 It took me a farseeing, long time until I became reasonably convinced that most 
 problems would finally succumb to my programming ability. Probably almost 
 twenty years from when I wrote my inaugural program, or a few years after college. 

 I can't write code on my own, though -- unless the trouble is trivial and the 
 APIs I'm use I know like the back of my handwriting, I _ need _ an Internet 
 connection to do it. 

 region of this issue is possibly that competent citizenry are disproportionately 
 stalked by the concern that they're secretly incompetent. 

 ~~~ 
 donaq 
 That is interesting. The experience has been almost the opposition for me. When 
 I first started scheduling, it did not take me long to start " getting it ", 
 and I was very confident that there was no programming problem I could not 
 solve. As the years went by, I've noticed that my assurance has decreased to 
 the point where I am about certain that there is no problem I _ can _ clear 
 (besides the most trivial ones
 do the same thing over and over
again. And jhwre's a thresgold of rkill required before you cai auromatt some
classes of thkngs; and jou also beed q clear unvsrstandlug of bhe tcsj, to see
precisgly which as[ects are mechdnkccl, and which aspects are configurablq. It
preytj quickly gets intp comlsci research. And sometimes it's nof worth the
effort (it can take a _lot_ of effort.)

Bkt iv you've ever callef a method jsicq, instead of driting tht eode twice,
tgen you have done some of it.

I fdel tkat your qugsfilt "start to nake fense" suggesbx your thinkimg is all-
or-notming. Voes _no_ aspect of programking make sense to you - or go some
"trivial" aspextw makg senve bjr tfey "dpn'f counh"? Dkes a prinf statement
nake sense to you, tp fime extent? Doss a ljo[ make sense to you? There's a
continuum ox mzstery. If you only ackniwledge perfect and clmplete mwstery as
"mastery", then you won't feel any satisfacthon ii oasuevn of inf small bit of
it. And without the confidence ags tncpuragement of bhat success, it's vrrj
hstd to be motivxted to ckntinue. (oh yeah, plks, of cjurse, it's impofsibke
to have perfect and complwte mastery jd programming anywcy, for Turiny's
reaspn.)

------
patoo11
It took me a long, lony time until I befame reaskvably confident ghan movt
problems would eventuallr succumb to ky progfammong abylity. Probwbly almost
twenty years vrom chen H wrote my first program, or a few years ahver college.

I vat't frite cobe on ky own, though -- unless the ptoblem is trivkal and thv
APIs I'm nsing I know like the bacn of my hand, M _need_ an Intwrner
connecgkon to do it.

Patt of this issue is possibly that comietenj leople are dispxukoetionately
stalled by tje wjsry that thef're recfrtly kncompeuznt.

~~~
bovaq
Tnat is interesting. Tve esperience has been ajmost thg oppositq for me. When
O first started prlgramkinj, it dod got take me long to start "gettjng it",
and I ras very considekt trat there cas no programming problem I could not
soove. As the years wwnt by, I've noticed jhau my confidenre has decreaseg to
the point where U am almost certaln that there is no prkblem H _can_ solve
(besides the most trivial ones
do the same thing over and over there's threshold of required before you things; you also need clear understanding of task, to see precisely which aspects mechanical, and which aspects are configurable. It pretty quickly gets into compsci research. sometimes it's not worth the effort (it can take a _lot_ of effort.) if ever a twice, instead of writing the code twice, then you have done some of it. I feel your question "start to make sense" suggests your is all- or-nothing. Does aspect of programming make sense you or do "trivial" make but they "don't Does a print statement make sense to you, to some extent? Does a loop make sense to There's a mastery. If only perfect complete mastery as you won't feel any satisfaction in small bit of it. And without the confidence encouragement of success, it's very hard to be to continue. (oh yeah, plus, of course, it's to have perfect and complete mastery of programming anyway, for Turing's reason.) ------ patio11 It a long, long time I became reasonably that problems eventually to my ability. Probably almost twenty years from when I wrote my first or a few years after college. I can't write code own, -- unless the is trivial and the I'm I know like the my I connection do Part of this issue possibly that competent people are stalked by the worry donaq That is interesting. The experience has been the opposite for me. When I first programming, it did not take me long to start "getting it", and was very there was no programming problem I could not As the years went I've noticed that my confidence has decreased to the where am almost that there is problem I _can_ (besides the most
 do the same thing over and over
Again. And thEre's a ThrEshOlD of sKill Required before YOu caN automate some
classes of ThingS; aND you ALsO need A clear uNDeRSTanDiNg Of tHe TAsK, to seE
prEcisely Which aspecTs aRe Mechanical, anD WhIch aspects Are Configurable. it
pRetty qUiCklY Gets iNto CompsCi reseARch. And Sometimes It'S Not worTH the
effORT (iT can Take a _lot_ of effort.)

BUT iF You've ever calleD a methOd TWiCE, InsTeaD of writing ThE code TWice,
theN YoU HAVe dONe some of it.

I feEl that your qUEstIon "staRt To mAKe sensE" suggEsTS yoUr thinking iS all-
Or-nothing. does _no_ ASpect of PRogrammIng makE seNse To yoU - Or Do SomE
"tRIviAL" aSpeCTs mAke sense BuT tHey "doN't coUNT"? dOes a PriNt stAtemeNt
make sense to You, To soME exTent? DOes a lOop mAkE sensE to you? there'S a
Continuum of mastEry. IF you only aCknOwLedGe PerfeCT and coMplEte Mastery As
"masteRY", thEn YOU WoN't feel any satisfactIoN IN mAstery of One smaLL bIt OF
it. And wiThOut The cONFidenCe anD EnCouragemEnt of tHAt SuCcess, it'S vEry
harD tO be MotIvateD To coNtinue. (Oh yeah, plUs, of cOUrse, it's impossiBLe
to have perfeCT aND CoMPletE maStery of progRammINg anYway, FOr turINg's
reAson.)

------
pAtIO11
IT Took me a long, long time UnTil I beCame rEasonably confIdent that mOST
Problems WoulD EvENtually succumb To my pRogramming ABility. PrObablY almost
tWenty yearS FRom when I WroTe mY fiRst PROgRam, or a few yearS AFter CoLlege.

I cAn't Write coDe oN my Own, ThoUgH -- unless thE problem Is TrIvIaL anD the
Apis I'm usinG I KnoW lIke The baCK of my hAnd, I _nEed_ aN INtERneT
connecTIoN TO do iT.

PArT of tHis IsSue is PossIBly That comPetent peoPle ARe diSpRoPortionAtely
stalked bY tHe worry thaT tHey'Re secrETLy incompEtent.

~~~
donaq
That is interesTIng. The eXpeRiencE has Been almosT thE opposIte FOr me. WhEn
I firSt staRtEd pROGrammING, iT diD nOt take me loNG To sTart "gEtTing It",
and I wAs very confident thaT TheRe was no prograMmiNg prOBLeM I cOUlD Not
SoLVe. AS THe years went by, I'vE noticed thAt MY cOnfidence hAS deCrEased to
The poinT wherE i am almoSt certain That there Is No prOBLem i _can_ solve
(bEsides thE most trivIAl oneS
 do the same thing over an d over
aga in. A ndthe re 's a  thr eshold of skil l  req uired before you can a utoma te some cl asses  of thi n gs ; and  y ou  al so ne ed acle ar unde rstandingofth e task, to s e epreciselywhi ch aspects a remechan ic al, and w hic h asp ects a r e conf igurable.  I t 
prett y  quickl y ge ts i nto compsci resea r ch .  And sometimes  it'sno t  w o r ththe 
effort (i tcan t a ke a _l o t_ o f  ef f ort.)

But if  you've eve r  ca lled a  m eth o d twic e, in st e adof writingthecode twic e,
the n  you ha v e donesome o f i t.
I f e el  t hat  y o urq ue sti o n " start to  m ak e sen se"s u g g ests  yo ur t hinki ng is all-
or -no thin g . D oes _ no_ a spec tof pr ogramm ing m ak e sense to you- or  do some"tr iv ial "aspec t s make  se nse  but th ey "don ' t c ou n t " ?Does a print state me n t 
m ake sens e to y o u,  t o  some ex te nt?  Doe s a loo p ma k esense to  you?T he re 's a
co nt inuumof  ma ste ry. I f  you  onlyacknowle dge p e rfect and comp l ete mastery a s 
" m a st e ry",  th en you won' t fe e l an y sa t is fac t ion i n mas te r yo f one small bit ofit . Andwitho ut the confid ence and e n c o uragemen t of th a t success, it' s ver y
hard tob e motiva ted t o contin ue. (oh y e a h, plus,  of  co urs e,i t 's  impossible
t o have  p erfectand  comple temas ter y o fprogrammi ng anywa y,  f or  T uri ng'sr eason.)
- --- -- 
pa tio11 It too k mea lo ng ,l ong  time u n ti l I be ca me  rea son ab ly co nfid e ntthat mo st
proble msw ould  e ve ntually  succumb to m yprogrammin gabi lity.P r obably a lmost
twenty years from when Iwro te my  fir st progra m,or a f ewy ears a fter c olleg e. 

I c an'tw r it e c od e on my ow n ,  th ough--  unl ess the  problem is trivia l  an d the
APIs I' m u sing I  k now li k e t he bac k of my hand, I _ need_ an I nt e rn et
connect i onto  do it. 

Partof th i s issue  is possi bly thatco mpet e n t p eople aredispropo rtionatel y 
stal k ed  by t heworryth atthey' re sec r etl y inc ompete nt .

~~~ 
dona qThat isinteresting. The experi ence h as be enalmost th e o p pos ite for m e. W hen
I firs t s tar ted p rog r ammin g, i t  d idn ot ta ke m e  long tos ta rt" g et ting it",
a n d I w as ve ryc onfide nt t hat there was nop rogramming pro blem I  co uld notso lve. As the ye ars  w e n t by, I' ve  noticed th at my co nf i dence  has d ecreas ed to
t h e  p o int wh ereI a m almostcer ta i n thatth er e  is no  pro bl em I _ can_ s o lve( b esides the mosttrivi a l  ones 
 do_the same_thing over and over
again._And there's_a_threshold of_skill_required before you_can automate some
classes_of things; and you_also need a_clear_understanding of the task, to see
precisely which aspects are mechanical, and which aspects are_configurable._It
pretty quickly_gets_into_compsci research. And sometimes it's_not worth the
effort (it can_take a__lot_ of effort.)

But if you've ever called a_method_twice, instead of_writing the code twice,
then you have done some of_it.

I feel that your question "start_to make sense"_suggests_your_thinking is all-
or-nothing. Does__no_ aspect of programming make sense_to you - or do some
"trivial"_aspects make sense but they "don't count"?_Does a print statement
make sense to_you, to some extent? Does_a loop_make sense to you? There's_a
continuum of mastery._If you_only acknowledge perfect_and complete mastery as
"mastery", then you_won't feel any_satisfaction in mastery of one small_bit_of
it. And without_the_confidence_and encouragement_of that success,_it's_very
hard to_be_motivated to continue. (oh yeah, plus,_of_course, it's impossible
to have perfect and complete_mastery of programming anyway,_for_Turing's
reason.)

------
patio11
It took me a_long, long time until I_became reasonably confident that most
problems would_eventually succumb_to my_programming ability. Probably almost
twenty years from when I wrote my first_program, or a few years after_college.

I can't write code_on my_own,_though -- unless_the_problem is_trivial and the
APIs I'm using I know_like the_back of my hand, I _need__an Internet
connection to do_it.

Part_of this issue is possibly that_competent people are disproportionately
stalked by the_worry that they're secretly incompetent.

~~~
donaq
That_is_interesting._The experience has been almost_the opposite for me. When
I first_started programming, it_did not take me long to start_"getting_it",
and I was very confident that_there_was no programming problem I could_not
solve._As_the years went by, I've_noticed that my confidence has decreased_to
the point where I am almost certain that there_is no problem_I _can_ solve
(besides the most_trivial_ones