[jerojasro]

No, he doesn't. Any of those alternatives you mention (apprenticeship, etc.) require someone senior to you overseeing your tasks/progress. That someone can be a colleague, boss, CS teacher, etc. It's up to the entity overseeing your development (be it a school, or a company) to provide such expertise.

Once again, it's OK that you (person, programmer) don't know that. But as a company, there should be a strong guarantee that you (company) have the knowledge to build a good product. It's fine for a company to have some people who don't know this stuff, but not to not have anyone capable (and in a position that allows them to) notice these kind of mistakes.

[loeg]

The parent comment is talking about individuals, not companies:

> Maybe programmers should educate themselves in the basics before working on products people depend on?

That remark clearly puts the onus on individual workers and there is no qualifying statement that anyone who doesn't know this particular thing should be allowed to work, under supervision.

[coldtea]

>That remark clearly puts the onus on individual workers and there is no qualifying statement that anyone who doesn't know this particular thing should be allowed to work, under supervision.

Ever heard of the principle of charity? Programmers should educate themselves, and that includes senior supervision. And they should make sure they used what's best for the job when the ship while still learning -- and if they're unsure, they could check with someone...

[loeg]

The sarcastic question about my reading being uncharitable is amusingly disconnected from your original, extremely uncharitable comment about the OP.