> "Just as understanding the science to music does not make you a good musician or allow you to build a great band..."
I'm not a musician, but I disagree with the first part of this statement. My impression has been that understanding the theory can make the difference between a good musician and a great one.
One could apply the same to programming -- understanding the fundamentals of computing is not necessary but it can mark the difference between good and great.
I'm a musician and a programmer, with minimal theory knowledge but extensive work experience in both areas. I can do productive work, but at the same time, can see my own limitations. For instance, I would have a hard time organizing a large scale effort in either area: In music, that would be something like creating a long composition or arrangement involving multiple musicians. In programming, it would be coming up with the architecture for a big project.
Still, in a vein similar to a comment that I made about education yesterday, I wonder if there is such a thing as a "theory" of the formation and administration of work teams, i.e., of a level of reliability similar to music or programming theory.
I'm not a musician, but I disagree with the first part of this statement. My impression has been that understanding the theory can make the difference between a good musician and a great one.
One could apply the same to programming -- understanding the fundamentals of computing is not necessary but it can mark the difference between good and great.