111–120 of 499 posts
That's what we have software for, do boring stuff so we don't have to! By automating these people proved themselves to be developers, and not just software-in-a-meatbag, or SIAM, if you will.
It should be noted that programmers are not automating themselves out of programming jobs . They're automating themselves out of data entry, or testing, or any number of other mindless tasks easily done by computers.
If you think about it, the existence of programming languages and compilers is due to programmers automating their jobs away. They no longer had to tediously translate higher level algorithms to machine code. And really, the existence of computers is the result of automating the job of human computers away. The entire history of computer science is this. The difference is that these guys hit a local maxima, and just…
That's assuming your employer will "move you up" and you'll make more money. Or that a future employer will see value in you automating your job. Then there's this story from TFA:
> a user posting as AcceptableLosses wrote, “They took what I had developed, replaced me with an idiot that they showed how to work it, and promptly fired me for ‘insubordination.’ I had taken a business asset that was making them $30 grand a year profit and turned it into a million dollar a year program for the company, and they fired me for it to save ~30 grand a year on my salary. Job creators my ass.”
Which sounds so entirely stupid as to be almost incredible. Why not just take this guy and move him, even sideways, to another role he can automate? But I believe him, because I've seen a lot of stupidity in Big Companies, especially the old school ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I usually write scripts in Python or Bash, depending on the task. I've had a fair amount of success using a cron for scheduling, but I've come to really enjoy using Jenkins for automated tasks. A lot of tasks make sense to trigger off of events other than the time and Jenkins is quite flexible in that regard.
Some kinds of automation only create more work. Looking at you, Chef.
Being able to have chef integration tests (or are they considered unit tests?) seems really powerful. But holy fuck does Chef have a ton of (what feels to me like) cruft
It should be noted that programmers are not automating themselves out of programming jobs . They're automating themselves out of data entry, or testing, or any number of other mindless tasks easily done by computers.
That's not always true. In at least 2 different organizations I worked at they were creating a combinatorial mess of search screens and/or reports.
Using a little bit of meta programming, query-by-example forms, data dictionaries, click-able drill-downs, and modular design; such "reporting stacks" could often be simplified into either a fewer number of screens and/or designed in such a way that a non-programming power user could configure most reports on their own. Allowing CSV exports of query results also reduces the number of "paper" report requests because Excel users can then format their own.
The result is something that needs roughly 1/3 as many programming hours to update and maintain.
One caveat is that you have to know the domain fairly well for it to be practical. You have to learn the domain patterns and habits in order to factor those patterns into meta-patterns. When I tried it as a newbie to the org, I usually did it wrong.
It's interesting how people expect workers to "earn" their salaries through suffering. It's almost religious. At the same time, lots of businesses charge their clients a percentage of their earnings and it's ok.
Funny, I've always seen it the opposite way. The employer earns my work by giving me a salary. My work has a value and the employer pays for it. The minute they stop paying me, my offer cease and they lose any future value I might have brought them. Maybe it's because I did a lot of freelance and agency work before working a full time contract.
The worst jobs I have ever had have ALWAYS been the ones where I'm not contributing to my company in an obvious way, or at consulting firms where we consistently kick ass and finish our sprints early, and then goof off for days on end.
I actually believe that there's a culture war implied in this debate; the question of who deserves to reap the gains of automation is more than just philosophy or ethics. The question "is there inherent nobility in work itself?" seems to be just as much a political divide as any of the current popular hot-button issues. Your gut reaction says a lot about the regional values of where you grew up, whether you'd ever support a basic income, and whether you believe that someone's refusal to work should condemn them to destitution.
The closest comparison is the attitude people have if they find a wallet. In Japan, you will get your wallet back with cash intact. Yet in the west, there exists a large contingent of people who believe with all of their heart that God wanted them to find it, that the person who lost it should have been more careful, that they are just having a lucky day. Unless God shows up and declares one side to be ethically correct, it will remain a toss-up.
One thing I find fascinating about the article is that it's assumed the cleverness was the code written to automate. This is incorrect; the cleverness is in noticing when a task can be automated. Typically, the code itself is trivial.
Anyhow: automation is surely one of the best reasons every person should learn a little bit of programming. And even with that task accomplished, I suspect that the rate of people seeing the opportunity to automate will stay roughly flat.
It should be noted that programmers are not automating themselves out of programming jobs . They're automating themselves out of data entry, or testing, or any number of other mindless tasks easily done by computers.