exactly. Thinking that you're a decent programmer after 6 months is nothing but hubris, and shows you're still in the stage of not realising there is much, much, much more to learn. Or his definition of 'decent' does not match mine.

The latter. I know a lot of great coders, and most of them set the bar for "decent" very high. By decent I mean that you could actually write code to solve most problems you come across. Is the code going to be less than optimal? Of course. Most of the time it's even going to be pretty ugly code (you should see my backend code for a case in point). I'm not being presumptuous, I just have lower standards than most of you guys :)

Not trying to be mean, but it doesn't work that way. "Decent" is relative to everybody else.

Which actually sets the bar pretty darned low, when you think about it. With only a little of the right sort of information, and a higher-than-normal give-a-shit factor, it would be easy to get beyond the level of the vast majority of 21-day wonders and cargo culters out there.

I would rate that level of coder as a 'good' coder. I would rate 'decent' as 'the level at which I don't wince when I hear who has been assigned to the project'.