Skip to main content

On gambling and computer languages

Today's entry will be a bit more esoteric than most others, it's basically an broad analogy between gambling a choosing a software language to learn/specialize in.

Basically as a programmer you have many choices in your career as to how which languages to learn and what level. The main 2 choices though are whether or not to become a specialist or a generalist.

Take a roulette table, it's possible to make sure you will have a better chance of winning by spreading your money around it (being a generalist) but if you win, your win will be offset by your losses. If you put all your money on one square, if you will you will win big but your chances of winning are lower.

Now look at specializing vs generalization in programming. Some of the people I know who earn the most money as programmers (at least per hour) tend to specialize in small areas. I know one who only really knows JavaScript (at an architect's level), another who writes add ons for Outlook, and another who specializes Adobe Flash. On a per hour basis they are all doing quite well, however the number of companies they can work for are quite limited and while COBOL programmers were making great money up until Y2K, a lot of them aren't doing very much now.

The generalists may not make as much per hour, but the number of places they can work are much higher and if demand falls off in one of their languages then they can pick up another language and focus on that. They are also people who have the luxury of choosing which tool they want to use for a task as opposed to trying to make their only tool do the job (i.e. hammering in a nail with a wrench).

Roulette however is totally probability driven and not experience driven. Perhaps in that case a better analogy would be horse racing. Before one chooses a horse (or horses) one has to do a lot of research into how it's been doing as a predictor of how it will do in the future. The same applies to computer languages. Some will obviously be around for a while, some are on their way in, and some on their way out. If you learnt Java or C++ chances are you will be able to work in those languages for the rest of your career.

But as with horses, sometimes one chooses a language because one just instinctively likes it.

As for myself, I am an unabashed generalist. I will continue to back several horses and while I may not make as much, at least one of them will win.

Comments

jonwilson said…
As far as I can tell, computer-savvy people can be really good at gambling. Programming folks in particular who are great at numbers can learn poker and easily master it.
Marcella said…
Knowing at least one computer programming language is important in the first place. I think it is better to be master of one than being a "generalist". However, if you are involved in gambling, it is better to know the different languages used. You can use it to your advantage by studying how each game works if programmed in, let's say, java or c++.
professional gambling

Popular posts from this blog

Freezing Gems

What is a gem and why would you want to freeze it?

In Ruby, there are times when you want to access pieces of functionality that other people of written (3rd party libraries) and you normally have 2 options. You can install a plug in or install a gem. Normally the method you use is determined by which ever is made available by the author.

Gems are installed on the host machine and are pretty handy when you want to run things in the command line or else across lots of projects, but their downside is that if you use a gem in a Rails project there is no automatic publishing mechanism when you deploy your site. You will need to log onto the remote host machine and install the gem manually.

Plugins are specific to Rails and are similar to gems in that they are also 3rd party libraries. However they are associated with your Rails project as opposed to your machine so they will get posted to the server on a regular deploy.

Freezing a gem is the process of transforming a gem into a plug in. Essen…

Comparing Rails' Active Record Pattern with Phoenix/Elixir/Ecto

Rails has a very well established Active Record pattern for dealing with the database. You have an Active Record model which maps to the database table, the schema of the model comes directly from the database schema and you place your model specific methods on the Active Record model. This file is also where you set your model relationships (e.g. has_many, has_one, belongs_to). Your instance of the model has all the methods built in.

In Ecto/Phoenix it's a little different. First of all, the database schema doesn't automatically map to the "model". In fact we don't really have models (as Elixir is a functional paradigm). What happens in one file in Rails, happens in essentially two (or more). You have a schema file (where you have to list out all the attributes and relationships). Using the schema file, your "instance" is essentially a data structure (with no methods on it). If you want to transform the data on your struct, you would use a context modu…

Unit/Functional Testing RubyAMF

One of my current projects is using RubyAMF to communicate with Flash (http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyamf/). On the whole this is really nice because it allows you to transfer Ruby objects directly to ActionScript ones (as opposed to translating the object into XML, sending the XML and then recreating the object in ActionScript).
However, Rails does not provide a built in transport mechanism for AMF, so we cannot run functional testing directly on the data call (as we could for an XML or HTML transport layer). This is a show stopper for a lot of people (Rails w/o Unit testing = a big mess of trouble when something goes wrong).
We can though serve both the HTML and the AMF formats depending on the request format. This means that we can test the object instantiation logic and make sure there are no errors in the controllers (though we cannot check the actual format of the data being served). In the controller, instead of rendering AMF alone, do the following respond_to do |format|