Do the programming habits of a programmer spill over into the way they/we use ordinary non-computer language? For example do they/we tend to create sentences that have little or no ambiguity in the way they can be interpreted.
I like to thing I do, but I can’t be sure. I think my postings on these boards can be quite ambigious sometimes. I try to write emails in such a way that they cannot be mis-interpreted and don’t leave any questions remaining.
On the other hand my non-programming peers tend to do the opposite. For example my Boss will ask for some sort of report, and I will nearly always have to ask him to be more specific, often guessing at what he means and asking “Do you want it broken down by X? Do you want Y filtered out? What do you mean by ‘Active customers’?”
I haven’t been a programmer in 20 years and I can’t say that I can tell by their writing style outside of a technical environment, but I often find that when I admire someone’s concise and clear logic in a non-technical area like politics they turn out to be or have been a programmer.
>For example do they/we tend to create sentences that have little or no ambiguity in the way they can be interpreted.
I don’t understand. Are you part of the group you’re asking about, or not? And am I right to take this as a question, even though you didn’t punctuate it as one?
FWIW I tend to guess somebody is an IT type if their typing happens in short fast bursts, many of which end in an emphatic hammering of the Enter key with the right middle finter, with sometimes a few hits of the Backspace key first.
Sometimes I can spot them, in conversations like this:
Manager: “If the payment value is more than 100 pounds, then I want the paperwork to go on this pile - if it’s less than 100 pounds, it can just go straight into the file”
Staff: “What if it’s exactly 100 pounds?”
(When this happens, it’s a fairly safe bet that Staff is a programmer)
A few years ago, a few friends and I were riding the subway in Tokyo. In the midst of my usual pontificating, a woman turns to me out of the blue and asks if I’m an engineer (to say that it’s unusual for strangers to talk to you on the subway in Japan is an understatement). It turns out that she was actually Chinese-American, and grew up in Silicon Valley, thus her identification of me as an engineer from my attire. She ended up joining us for dinner, and several of us still exchange the occasional email with her.
Not exactly what you’re asking about, but I’ve never been one to leave out a story, no matter how tangential to the topic at hand.
I’m not a programmer, but I’ve considered myself a Linux geek before, and whenever I see Americans write like this:
And God said, “Let there be light**”.**
instead of like this:
And God said, “Let there be light**.”**
that’s a tip-off that they’ve at least dabbled.
And, yes, avoidance of syntactic and semantic ambiguity is definitely a trait I’ve noticed among hackers/programmers/scripters/computer geeks. As is taking everything literally, which is sometimes intentionally ironic and sometimes just how they think.
By the way, readers of this thread may find the following Jargon File/New Hacker’s Dictionary links interesting:
If I’m particularly particular about how I word things, it has more to do with hanging around in GD than from being a programmer. Computer languages are a lot more linked to math than to human languages. I don’t they are close enough for any sort of overlap to effect one another across the threshold.
It would be very difficult to guess a programmer from purely the language he uses in regular conversation.
I realised my mathematics, science and programming educations were paying off at a party. The MC said into the mike “If you’re having a great time then make some noise!” as they do.
I thought to myself, what he means to say if and only if you are having a good time then make some noise. His statement doesn’t cover the condition of if you are not having a good time, meaning that someone who is having a bad time is free to make some noise. Thus it is not a valid measure of how many peole are having a good time.
If I do’t do things like this, parties become very boring.
You’re assuming that the MC wants an accurate reading on how many people are having a good time. His motivation could simply be to make the party noisier, and if people who are not having a good time really find it necessary to contribute, he’s willing to turn the other cheek. Or he could just be a noise-liberty purist, believing it unfair to try to keep people having a bad time from making noise if they want to.
My interest in science makes my first assumption that he is interesting in making reliable measurements. I mean, how else is he going to know he is doing his job right? He will never improve his efforts without constant self assessment.
MCs are also known for saying things like “Everybody make some noise!”, a much more efficient way of increasing the noise level. If he fears that will make too much noise, saying “Everybody increase your noise output by 30±5%” or something to that effect.
That’s nice of him, but ultimately sloppy to not include people how aren’t having a good time as a special case. This solution lacks elegance.
“Everybody in the house make some noise, if and only if you feel you would like too. No pressure, I mean I don’t mind either way, I’m just saying it might be nice if you, as a crowd, could make, on average, more noise than you currently are. I thank you in advance for your cooperation.”
Again, you’re assuming, which is a no-no in true empiricism. He may have no actual desire to improve his efforts. For example, he might already think he’s pretty good at showing everyone at the party a good time.
Let’s be fair: it’s hard to regulate one’s actual noise output to that degree. It all goes down smoother if the MC just uses his mad MC skills to trick people into giving about the right amount of noise.
See, I’m thinking he’s allowing people having a bad time to express themselves in a way that doesn’t kill everyone else’s buzz. In fact, participating in an activity meant for people having a good time might have a sort of placebo effect; by indirectly identifying as people having a good time, the people who aren’t actually having a good time can end up having a better time, and then they’re well on their way to a real good time. According to this theory, the imprecision is actually a well-thought-out public service, not an example of sloppy noise-requesting.
Ah, see, if he’s a noise-liberty purist, he’s more concerned about the right to make noise than the right to not make noise. Granted, an NLP is not likely to actually keep people from expressing their right to not make noise; but he’s looking for more noise, not less. In effect, he’s saying that people having a good time are obligated by the social contract to make noise, and implying that people not having a good time may make noise as well, although it may be discouraged.
This! My SO used to work in IT and treats his keyboard like he’s in the boxing ring (jabjabjabPOW! JabjabjabPOW!). I’ve seen the same in other people I know who are either programmers or in IT.
Interesting topic. About of half the coders I hire someone to complete a project via Rent-A-Coder either tell me that my written requirements identify me as a technical type, or ask me if I’m not a programmer of some stripe myself. As it happens, I am, but I’m entirely self-taught, and for smaller single-function applications I often can’t afford the time to research the language/functionality to do the project myself. (Besides, I like to read others’ code for simpler apps to see if there are any neat tricks I can steal.)
I do think there’s a non-coincidental correlation between a certain type of descriptive thought process and computer programming, but I don’t know that it goes much beyond that with any reliability. Still, it’s useful, as it allows me to communicate precisely and efficiently with fellow “programmer-minded” people in a business environment, whether the discussion is technical in nature or not.
I don’t know if my language specifically pegs me as a programmer (though I haven’t been in a number of years – but am about to get back into it again) but I suspect that those who are drawn to programming would tend to have a logical bend to the way they think and process information. I certainly do anyway, and I’m sure that on some level that filters down into the way I talk, but whether that points to my inclinations toward programming I can’t say.
I think it depends on what other influences one has in their life. I come from parents that both had creative genes; my father was a jazz musician and my mother was a painter. As a result I have very strong creative genes, and thus also very much enjoy writing music, creating art, cooking, creative writing, and almost anything else where I can create something either from scratch or constituent parts. Programming is as much an extension of that as it is my tendency toward logical thinking; it just so happens that those two aspects of me are ideally matched for such a thing. (It is also responsible for the fact that I tend not to work very well in a development environment where I am only responsible for one aspect of a program. I much prefer creating my own – on my own. Anything else is grunt work*.)
I don’t know how much this post will reflect my programmer’s nature, but I tend to think that whatever elements of one’s mode of speech are indicative of a programming background, they are tempered by the other sides of me that are in it for the creative aspects, with a flair for drama, or sometimes comedy.
[sub]* I can work in a partnership with a handful of others provided we can all get on the same page and each work on those things that we individually excel at. It’s the cog-in-a-machine programming environment that I wouldn’t cope quite so well in.[/sub]
Someone just pointed out to me on another site that I use single quotes most of the time when I should use double quotes. I think that may be a leftover programming habit that I’ve become lazy about.
This used to be a pretty big tip-off in my writing; I would consistently place punctuation outside of quotes unless it had a good semantic reason for being a part of the quotation. It just made sense to me: I reasoned that the period or comma or other mark delimits a syntactical element of the language, a sentence or a clause or what have you, which contains the quotation. Having the inner delimiter overlap the outer seemed to me to create a poor syntactic reflection of the semantic elements, so I eschewed the form.
I mean, you wouldn’t write const char* foo = “Hello;”, would you? :dubious:
I have since cured myself of this habit, but whenever I see someone else doing this consistently (i.e., it doesn’t appear that they’re just unsure or sloppy), I begin to suspect that they may have some programming experience.
Other programmer writing shibboleths include a proclivity for producing several layers of nested parenthetical remarks without missing a beat, and without apparently noticing or thinking unusual the pileup of closing parentheses resulting at the end, and a tendency toward overuse of the semicolon.
