On 25.06.24 13:25, Noon van der Silk wrote:
It's a minimal foundation that employers can assume so they don't have to check that themselves, they can concentrate on other aspects, and it's a known stable foundation, minimal as it may be.
But I think this is the precise problem with it being supported by the HF.
I don't think it's a minimal foundation at all (almost regardless of it's content).
Oh but it is. It may be useless, there may be better options, there might be other issues with it. But being able to acquire a certificate in a field IS a foundation.
I think we've learned by now https://sordina.net/blog/2016/03/26/1458976158-Aesthetic-Isomorphism_and_Hir..., as a broad programming community, that there's a classical logical fallacy here - (some) "good" programmers can do well on these exams, but that /doesn't/ mean you *must* complete this well in order to be a "good" programmer. There's many issues here among them that "good programmer" is only defined respect to organisational context anyway.
While the linked article does have a point, it's just one way to look at hiring decisions or engineer performance, and others are just as useful and valid. So, no, not a logical fallacy. Just a different perspective.
I think it's completely fine and reasonable for a private company (Serokell) to be offering this certification, especially one such as them that has real experience in the Haskell ecosystem and plenty of people contributing; but I think what would be a very bad situation is that if the HF itself, and the broad Haskell (hiring) ecosystem got the idea that this was something all candidates should seek achieve.
Nobody is claiming that, and it would be a very unexpected outcome. In practice, a certificate gives you a modicum of street credibility if your CV does not document a background in the area. Regards, Jo P.S.: I do see your point about independence, and agree that's a potential concern.