Mastery would imply that you can do it all, and do it right, on any project, and there is just too much change and evolution for that to ever be true.
My goal is simply that I continue to improve.
21–30 of 290 posts
Mastery would imply that you can do it all, and do it right, on any project, and there is just too much change and evolution for that to ever be true.
My goal is simply that I continue to improve.
Pai Mei mustache, sits on a rock meditating and dispensing advice to juniors, quotes Martin Fowler by heart, seems to never touch a keyboard but every commit will replace entire module(s) flawlessly, demonstrating high level architectural knowledge that lies on the far side of the organisation's learning curve.
> but every commit will replace entire module(s) flawlessly That's big commits, you're not supposed to do that. Masters commit individual characters that replace entire modules flawlessly.
I don't think there is mastery in this work. I've been doing this for decades, and I still think my code from 6 months ago is crap, no matter how much I learn and improve. Mastery would imply that you can do it all, and do it right, on any project, and there is just too much change and evolution for that to ever be true. My goal is simply that I continue to improve.
I also have trouble believing you've been coding for so long and can't take pride in any of the code you've previously written.
IMO it's about understanding the solution curve in the problem space. Every problem type has a range of possible solutions. Most of these solutions are wrong and a few are correct with different tradeoffs. When you can't do better without making tradeoffs, you're on the curve. Novice engineers will struggle to get something done. Intermediate engineers can get things done but fail to see the tradeoffs. Expert enginee…
I don't think there is mastery in this work. I've been doing this for decades, and I still think my code from 6 months ago is crap, no matter how much I learn and improve. Mastery would imply that you can do it all, and do it right, on any project, and there is just too much change and evolution for that to ever be true. My goal is simply that I continue to improve.
That's the right mindset for an individual but not particularly helpful for an answer. Constant improvement is part of mastery but not a great yard stick. I also have trouble believing you've been coding for so long and can't take pride in any of the code you've previously written.
I think I do what I do pretty well. The folks I work with seem to like it.
* Consistent delivery of quality work
* Instead of complaining about bad requirements that threaten system integrity, happily works with stakeholders to compromise on them accordingly
* Can consistently describe every detail of every bit of work they have done, and answer any curveball questions about it too
* Succinct and to the point, doesn’t bog down meetings with tangential arguments and what-aboutisms
Could probably keep going but that’s good for now haha. I know I don’t even satisfy all of these points myself at all times, but I certainly try to!
There are a variety of positions one could take once reaching enlightenment: 1. Domination. One could choose to be controlling of the entire field and use it for selfish benefit. 2. Dismissive. Once you reach the pinnacle it becomes apparent that both humanity and the society it has created are horrid and aren't worth interacting with. 3. Appreciation. One could choose to be thankful for being able to reach such a position and to respond by generously using the mastery to use it for the good of humanity. 4. Constructive Legacy. One could choose to form ones own group around that mastery to preserve it beyond themselves.
I believe the dismissive position is the most reasonable and hence most likely to be chosen by those who reach true mastery.
All four positions regularly occur and you can see it readily in masters of respective fields.
The way a master appears depends on their reaction to having gained mastery.
I think the dismissive position is also most likely because I believe there are far more masters than we ever notice. They are not noticed because the majority of them don't bother to use their mastery in an obvious way.
Why should a master bother to correct those beneath them?
If a master interacts with society they have an uphill battle to being treated with the respect they deserve. For the true master there is great value in going their own way and rejecting society.
I don't think there is mastery in this work. I've been doing this for decades, and I still think my code from 6 months ago is crap, no matter how much I learn and improve. Mastery would imply that you can do it all, and do it right, on any project, and there is just too much change and evolution for that to ever be true. My goal is simply that I continue to improve.