The fact that to develop some careers you must pay is not great, but is ok and it is really cheap if you think it as an investment. Also, it gets a little bit confusing to understand its UX at first, but this is not a big deal. I also feel that the website is extremely clean and responsive. The code editors and all are also well equipped with very neat themes.
The part which I dislike about codeacademy is that most of the quality content is charged and the level of the free content is limited to a beginner level which seems to be a bit unsettling. Apart from the charged services, I feel that Codeacademy is still far better than its competitors. Read more student success stories here ». As always, the best platform for you depends on what your learning goals and current abilities are. Sign up for Codecademy here and take a few free courses or try the free trial of Pro to see if the platform is a good fit for you!
Table of Contents What Is Codecademy? What Is Codecademy? Start coding now Stop waiting and start learning! Get my 10 tips on teaching yourself how to code. Now check your email to confirm your subscription. There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again. Enter your email address. Coursera Website. Learn more. Treehouse Website. Udemy Website. LinkedIn Learning Website. Udacity Website. Little me is understanding, okay, so if I'm willing to put in the time and thought, the machine will obey and I I have the literal power of infinity at my fingertips.
Thought it was the coolest thing ever. And then reading the manual to discover the other things it could do. That's kinda what did AND didn't work for me when it came to programming. In college my first class was a class about C, the instructor read from the book that appeared to be written about C for people who already knew C Company was bought out and I had time to think about what to do next.
Attended a boot camp and everything just clicked, the immediacy of producing something in a web app even if it broke really drove home what I was doing and so on. I've been happily coding since then. Similar thing happened to me. I conflated that with hating programming. After I finished my engineering degree, I got frustrated with repetitive tedious manual processes, so I started automating them.
As my skill grew, I realized I liked programming more than I liked being a mechanical engineer. Now I write code full time, but I'd be way farther ahead if I'd just got the CS degree to start with.
But since then have you gone back and learned all of that stuff from those classes? Is the point of school to make you interested in the first place or just assume you already found the topic interesting and see the value and you want to learn more.
Yes, sort of. I haven't taken a deep dive into anything like how to implement an OS, and I know I'm woefully undereducated about networking and the internet, but I have a tough time learning stuff without a concrete problem to solve that will make my life better. For example, I've written plenty of stuff that uses Python's requests library, but I don't know what happens under the hood between me making the library call and the network packets leaving the PC. I'd like to learn, but I don't have any problems facing me that would require that skillset or anything tangentially related.
As far as programming itself and designing software, I think I have learned as much as I would have retained in an undergraduate degree in CS. I have a minor in math and I took some basic circuits courses, and Ben Eater's YouTube channel has been hugely illuminating in areas of CS.
Really, if I could find places that are something like "solve this useful problem, here are the requirements, you'll need to know these 10 keywords to search stuff on the internet, here's how it'll be useful later" and then have someone or something evaluate my work, I'd love to see it. IggleSniggle 15 days ago parent prev next [—].
Yep, same same, but different. For me it was music and sound, starting with a blank canvas and mixing in digital signals and controls to build something out. Could have been with a DAW, but programming was just a more flexible and free-form blank-canvas for self expression. So many custom mouse cursors, shutdown screens, start-up sounds, etc etc. Both of those are Microprose games! It was really amusing when you failed an XCOM mission and the upbeat song Road Hog played, as if it's mocking your ineptitude of course, the same music is played when you win a mission too.
Oh well. For me, programming was like being a little god in my own little world. For an introvert especially, it was exhilarating. You write a command, and it obeys. When you see something on screen is even more satisfying. In fact, the all-night coding binges happen because in an intense period of learning, you are producing a ton of adrenaline, and that annihilates sleep. Sorry, working, don't care to look for the study right now. But it checks out.
But then I went professional and that felt a little like how the Old Testament God must have felt: overwhelmed and irritable. Reminds me of my first programming experience as a 10 year old kid. I broke out in laughter, realizing I can make real grey-on-black DOS programs just like that. It blew my mind and started my programming career. I know that feeling. It's a godlike feeling. We start with literally nothing and we create whole a universe inside the computer.
A personal virtual universe that reflects our minds and our understanding. We are the gods of these realms. This was my go-to answer for why I started programming, too. Only recently I realized that it didn't hold true for me, the real drive I think was wanting to explore things.
I loved computers, and games, and naturally was very curious about wanting to understand why and how they worked. Understanding driving motivations is so incredibly important, as it now gives me quite a lot more perspective in which direction I want to take my career and hobbies. I found it to be like my favorite toy as a kid: Lego, with the computer i could do something very similar and build my own stuff, i never wanted to do anything else..
I've had to focus on accessibility in our product lately, and learning to use a screenreader created a whole new version of this concept. Good on you man! You: 1. Dodged a bullet booo on any company that would reject someone with this level of passion. Created your own product which you seem even more passionate about 3. Did all the heavy lifting to make it interesting out of the gate provided content.
Wishing you all the success! PragmaticPulp 15 days ago parent next [—]. Passion is a double-edged sword: When a person's passions align closely with the company's needs, it's wonderful.
But if a person's passions conflict with what the founders want, the passion can amplify the conflict. That's why it's important to understand exactly what the candidate is passionate about.
If they're passionate about helping the company wherever necessary, that's one thing. If they're passionate about something tangential and they expect the shift the company in that direction by joining, that's something else.
Codeamigo appears distinctly different than Codeacademy in some key areas, as the author explains, so I wouldn't assume that his passions aligned exactly with what Codeacademy was hiring fire. I think it's best to give the benefit of the doubt to Codeacademy in this case.
Remember: Being rejected from a job doesn't mean someone is unqualified or a bad developer. There's more to matching candidates to a team and not every candidate is a good match for every team.
Why would anyone be passionate about any specific corporation? Sounds like a great way to be exploited. People are passionate about enjoyable activities such as programming, not companies. They help companies with their problems because they get paid for it.
Corporations are made of people, many of whom have a moral compass, and operate by that moral compass. If you believe in the mission of a company, the company is filled with people who also believe in that mission, and you're making real progress on that mission Sure, you could be "exploited", but many people don't really care whether or not they're being exploited, if they're being treated well and doing meaningful work with people they like -- even more so if they're working towards a goal that can only be accomplished by a larger organization.
Speculating that it's perceived risk mitigation. If you're perceived as loyal, helpful, and even somewhat capable, they'll keep you around! This is in fact the perfect role for that person who gets a lot of juice out of supporting someone else achieve their goals. It is also probably a personality thing. Of course, you have to answer a generalization of your own question: why be passionate about anything?
It doesn't seem to be a necessary, or indeed very useful, to improve darwinian fitness. PradeetPatel 14 days ago root parent prev next [—]. This is quite evident in the entertainment video games, film, music, etc. It has been established that many creative resources go to companies that produce most of their favorite work. Sadly, it is quite common for those companies to have rather diverse and relaxed ethical guidelines around crunch and overtime. Agentlien 14 days ago root parent next [—].
I've seen this first hand. Even heard a manager asking a whole company "don't you want this game to be good?! Luckily, my own experience is moving away from a company with crunch and a product I didn't particularly care for to a company strongly against crunch making a whole array of games I really love. Rather: Hiring based on passion is a way to get away with demanding a lot of overtime or crunch time. Why is it best to give Codeacademy the benefit of the doubt? They likely hire by committee, like any tech company.
In that scenario it's entirely dependent on who the committee is. It's not like Codeacademy, or any company for that matter, has some idempotent interviewing process.
If you changed the interview panels, or some of the questions, the candidate may likely have received an offer. Have you hired anyone? Asking because your comment make it sounds like there's science to it. I don't like the committee hiring as well but team or manager level hiring can segment the company culture.
Also individuals can be biased and hire based on vibes or who is like them etc. The truth is - you'll miss some great candidates because they simply interview poorly and of the flip side sometimes get a professional interviewee that cannot deliver once hired. You can also get a brilliant 10x candidate but a complete asshole e. Hiring is hard. We, as an industry, simply cannot interview. We don't know how to accurately gauge a candidates experience, personality or knowledge.
We can only make them perform monkey-see-monkey-do on a whiteboard or through stupid, asinine puzzles and leetcode style exercises. To make matters worse, we often place our most senior software developers on interview circuits. For better or for worse, engineers trend towards more anti-social traits. It makes the whole process of understanding one's personality, how they think, and whether or not they'll be a fit for the company a complete crap-chute.
This is literally the only industry I have been apart of that sucks this bad at a process that is so fundamental to professional life. I would rather interview at McDonalds or for a call center having had both of those jobs. The interview process as a whole is a crapshoot, but the process of understanding the candidate is a crap chute. HeyLaughingBoy 15 days ago root parent prev next [—].
It's a crapshoot whether or not you end up in a crap chute of a company. KerryJones 15 days ago root parent prev next [—]. I have -- quite a few times in quite a few different jobs. There actually is a lot more science to it than we usually take credit for. We have proven time and time again that certain times of interview questions are not helpful.
If you look at the best investors, their job is similar, I would say that most notably as YC being crazy successful and found similarly in my own hiring is that passion for a given space is one of the best predictors of success. PragmaticPulp 15 days ago root parent next [—]. The pool of candidates interested in full-time jobs is not the same as the pool of candidates interested in doing contract-to-hire positions. Contract-to-hire selects for people with the ability to risk working for a company for a period of time without a high risk of near-term unemployment if it doesn't work out.
The people willing to take those jobs are usually more qualified to begin with because they have more career options open to them if the contract-to-hire doesn't turn into a contract job. So you're basically pre-selecting your candidates.
KerryJones 13 days ago root parent next [—]. There are two different types of "contract-to-hire". This is more of a "trial week", but is still technically contract to hire.
They are not two different types of people, but it is true that it is much harder for someone who has an existing position to take off 5 days -- but we did it in our company and made accommodations to make sure we fit. It also weeded out people who wouldn't fit. So, you're agreeing that it works, then. I think they were trying to convey the idea that not all very qualified candidates would even consider a contract-to-hire option.
I know I wouldn't. Sounds interesting. If you happen to have links to any articles about that, it'd be interesting to read reply.
KerryJones 12 days ago root parent next [—]. I wish I kept the references, I didn't think they would be hard to refind but they have been. I've seen that article, it was posted at HN 1. I wonder b. Edit: I found some, I can post a link if you want. It'd be nice if there were ways to auto generate GMA tests. Then maybe it could be just fine if everyone was allowed to practice as how as they wanted -- if there was an unlimited supply of new questions, because they were auto generated.
Maybe something with generating random 3D shapes and applying rotations. But then it seems to me it's necessary to measure how well begin good at such things, correlates with being able to learn and get good at software, and scrap any poorly correlated tests.
Not sure that's anywhere near the same thing. Some people prefer to work as contractors since that tends to pay a lot more, and they might have many many offers to choose among. And, paired with not in the US a well functioning social welfare system in case of really bad luck reply. This is why it's important, in the corporate world, to cultivate a VB programmer's or PHP programmer's mindset, no matter what language you're working in: your passion should be with the business and solving exactly the business problem at hand, and treating your programming tools strictly as tools in service of the business.
Is there any room left for someone to just be good at something and a company pays them to do that thing. I think one should be passionate about the mission. If someone is just passionate about the company and is willing to follow any orders from management, then the original vision can easily be corrupted in a way no one notices.
Having universally agreeable employees also puts the target demographic at risk of being undermined by the employee based who never cared about the mission.
Small note: It's "Codecademy", not "Codeacademy". Like a mash-up of words rather than just two whole ones squished together. This is where you take a gamble and hire them, then ask them to leave if it really doesn't work. The chance you're giving up on a x leverage hire is just too high in such a case.
Agreed - passion is great when aligned with the business direction, but can be downright toxic when in conflict. I can only concur, having someone who's extremely passionate about a project but whose vision diverges drastically from the project's leads is hell all around.
I wanted to connect with members of my community and learn from them, instead of just digesting information from a black box.
Its where "mac fanbois" or "BOFHs" come from So many people like this just need a little dose of pragmatism. It helped my worldview immensely. The problem is that this kind of idealism is often what kindles the passion for various programmings topics in quite some people.
Dodged a bullet I'd argue that Codecademy dodged a bullet. Calling them out by name is in really bad taste IMO. Let's be honest: if he had launched a coding tutorial website thing and it didn't have the "comeback story" marketing narrative then no one would care. If it's so easy to build a coding tutorial website, then what advantage does Codecademy have beyond name recognition? So you're not competing with their tech, you're competing with their marketing.
You say bad taste, I say good marketing. I don't think it's objectively good marketing. My stance on the ethics of marketing is that "anything goes" until you start tarnishing the names of others to get ahead. Now I don't know to overstate what this guy did. Obviously he's not outright trash talking here. But I think once you form a company and start marketing then you should be held to some ethical standard. If you mention other people or companies by name then consider how what you're saying could be perceived.
Seems like a good advantage to have for a tutorial website. What kind of harm does this actually do to Codecademy? I would argue none. There is no downside to calling them out. Just look at the comment above mine: "booo on any company that". Some people will perceive his rejection as bad hiring practices on Codecademy's part. Every comeback story needs a bad guy that rejects or pushes down the hero before they rise.
That's what makes this post interesting. It's certainly not the content; creating a web app of stitched together NPM packages isn't exactly a major challenge these days. Especially if you're copying something else feature-by-feature. FTR, I have no opinion for or against Codecademy.
Whether it's a bad or good hiring practice depends on what you think of this guy. The information on whether any company hires or rejects a certain applicant is not a trade secret.
If you read this and think, "this guy's a douchebag," then yes, the company looks sane and reasonable, the opposite of bad. If you read it and think, "this guy is perfectly reasonable," then yes, the company looks bad. This poster isn't saying anything about whether Codecademy is good or bad, they're just stating the facts, which were created as a result of the company's hiring decisions.
If the facts make them look bad, that's on the company for making the choices they did. If they make them look good, the same applies. Again, I have no horse in this race. It's the narrative as they see it. Important details could be missing. Suppose you and I made a few attempts to start a company together and it didn't work out. Then I went off on my own as a solo founder and got seed funding. Then imagine I made a blog post titled "I tried to start a company with ironmagma 3 times and failed, so I became a solo founder instead and succeeded".
There's no race? Just commentary. It's an interesting discussion IMO. Okay, but in that sense of projection, all stated facts are projected versions of the facts. In your opinion, should we just not discuss our experiences with companies at all, since the descriptions will be mere projections of what actually happened? I don't think I can answer that question without more context. It largely depends on the situation. Don't broach muddy topics in public because the audience doesn't have enough context to see the complete picture.
It's sort of like airing your dirty laundry in a public restaurant. They are thus his direct competitor, which is extra information conveyed by this title. No one has enough context to see the complete picture, though. If someone is unhappy, that can be a good motivator for a story. The same is true for happiness IMO, by the way. Whomever you are--you will do well in life. I've know some brilliant people who seem to suffer from anxiety, and depression.
Don't push yourself to hard. I love the simplicity of your site. I will now signup. Way to be! People with that make for excellent teammates. Every startup I've been a part of has picked up a few extremely passionate but not necessarily fully qualified people along the way.
It's hard to turn down an enthusiastic candidate who really, really likes your company, so they're often given a chance. Some of them turned out to be excellent teammates who did everything necessary to grow into the role. But sadly, many of them just wanted to be startup people without doing the startup grunt work.
Worst case, someone with a lot of passion that goes in a different direction than the founders can become a drag on the company or create a lot of conflict. NOTE: I'm speaking generally, not implying this is the case with the linked author Passionate people are generally good when their skills and wants align with the company, but if they're not well-aligned then the passion just amplifies every conflict.
I'm starting to see where my original comment was definitely oversimplifying the depths of this topic. Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel. Skip to content Home Can you retake quizzes on Coursera? Ben Davis May 31, Can you retake quizzes on Coursera?
How many attempts can you have for Coursera quiz? Can I skip videos in coursera? Why is coursera so slow? How much does coursera cost? Should I put coursera on my resume? Does coursera look good on college applications? Can you get a job with Coursera certificate? What is the best MOOC platform? Can you get a degree through MOOCs? Do employers care about MOOCs?
Which is better CodeCademy or freeCodeCamp? Why is codecademy bad? Will codecademy get me a job? Is codecademy good for beginners? Do self taught programmers get hired? Can I put codecademy on my resume? Should I pay for codecademy?
0コメント