in reply to Structured Learning of Perl, Important or Not?

The other monks might disagree with me, but there are two kinds of geniuses in this world. Geniuses of hard work and geniuses of innate talent. In college, I saw both. You can get to where you want to go with both paths.

Can you correctly identify a problem?
Can you break down a problem into understandable parts?
Can you write an algorithm to solve said problem?
Can you understand the limitations of computing?
Do you know how to go about finding the answers to your questions?

Geniuses of innate talent will know how to do 1, 2, and 3 without knowing the syntax of any language and even on brand new tasks or projects. Starting work, they do not feel lost or intimidated. 4 you get with education; complexities, architecture, processing, platform knowledge, and more comes with time. I did notice that for those who were not geniuses of innate talent, comp sci was miserable for them. They spent all their time asking for help from others to do their work, did not know or perhaps hadn't the motivation to learn how to find the answers to their own questions (#5, geniuses of hard work must do this), and were generally miserable because everything was a struggle.

I mean to say all that for you to make sure comp sci is what you want, irregardless of what your hubby does. I do not have an innate talent for a lot of other fields, and I know I'd be unhappy if I felt lost in this one. Good luck in your choices.
  • Comment on Re: Structured Learning of Perl, Important or Not?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Structured Learning of Perl, Important or Not?
by matze77 (Friar) on Dec 03, 2008 at 14:03 UTC
    Whats comp sci?

    I like your list, i wish i consulted such a list of
    questions when i began my "career" a few years ago ...

    And this book (its about sysadmins but it covers many habits which regard programmers too i think):
    ISBN 0321492668