Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Levels of programmers (2009)

codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#21

Post by jwdunne »

From my experience, 'Where do you see yourself in 5 years?' actually helps me quite a lot. The jokers are obvious, the money-chasers are obvious and the people who genuinely love what they do are obvious.

As an example, here are two two extremes of answers I've heard: "perhaps leading my own team, perhaps even starting my company" and "doing what I love: computers". The first one tells me that the candidate isn't interested in sticking around for long, the other tells me that this person will excel because they are naturally interested in computers and not just chasing the money. The second candidate is still here and doing really well, by the way.

The pattern I've noticed in response to this question is that those who mention something intrinsic related to the job, such as "doing what I love: computers" or "being the best programmer I can possibly be", usually do much, much better. On the other hand, the candidates chasing external rewards tend not to last long.

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#22

Post by michaelochurch »

nahname wrote: post #20
michaelochurch wrote: post #16

I actually thought this piece was pretty well-crafted. The fact that it's a parody of an artist hierarchy only makes it better, in my view. I like the fact that, for the most part, the hierarchy has little to do with actual coding competence and a lot more to do with reputation and business acumen. (I like it in the sense that I might Facebook "Like" an article on a natural disaster. I don't like the fact that it's t…

If you removed the years of experience to achieve X from your definitions and added criteria you expect, then these "achievement levels" would have much more merit. I am pretty sure I am familiar with the types of individuals you are talking about here, but years of experience is one of the worst measures of, well experience. Years of experience is one of the larger generalizations we make in our industry. One that i…

As an HR-ism, "years of experience" is a stupid metric. I agree.

I only included such criteria for the 2.0 and 2.5 level, which characterize the top 1-2 percent (or less) of programmers. I should add that while I've never seen people reach 2.0+ without programming for 10 years (even if they weren't holding a professional-level job during all that time; they might have started at 14) I am not saying it can't happen. But 2.0+ engineers are uncommon and it has to be very rare for someone to get there without the Gladwellian "10,000 hours".

If you're looking to hire 2.0+ engineers, you're not using HR-isms. You don't pay attention to the standard HR bullshit about "must have Ph.D." or "must have 5 years of experience". You're often trying to fill the roles through referrals, because those people aren't on the job market for very long, and they tend to have very high requirements with regard to the jobs they take. You don't find these people using an HR checklist and filtering thousands of off-the-street CVs.

Most people aren't trying to hire 2.0+, because the work that a 2.0+ engineer will find interesting is uncommon and few companies even have use for that high a level of work.

I've been programming for 6 years, and have been aggressively managing my career in the direction of optimizing for learning, sometimes quitting jobs solely on account of boredom, and other times "stealing an education" from jobs, and I'm only 1.7-1.8. The 2.0's are rare and I've never met one under 30 (although it's certainly possible).

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#23

Post by Retric »

nahname wrote: post #20
michaelochurch wrote: post #16

I actually thought this piece was pretty well-crafted. The fact that it's a parody of an artist hierarchy only makes it better, in my view. I like the fact that, for the most part, the hierarchy has little to do with actual coding competence and a lot more to do with reputation and business acumen. (I like it in the sense that I might Facebook "Like" an article on a natural disaster. I don't like the fact that it's t…

If you removed the years of experience to achieve X from your definitions and added criteria you expect, then these "achievement levels" would have much more merit. I am pretty sure I am familiar with the types of individuals you are talking about here, but years of experience is one of the worst measures of, well experience. Years of experience is one of the larger generalizations we make in our industry. One that i…

10 years of experience does not equate to a great violinist, but I don't know any great violin players without it.

I started writing code at a young age, got a CS degree, and after graduating my first 3 months I was more productive than some people I have worked with with 5 years experience. I created something that a significant fraction of people I have worked with would have been unable to think of. However, I had just been writing code not reading it. After working on many projects both short and long term, I would cringe if I had to maintain the code I wrote back then.

Comments are a probably the perfect example where you need to be bitten by a stale comment a few times to really understand what's important.

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#24

Post by nahname »

Retric wrote: post #23
nahname wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you removed the years of experience to achieve X from your definitions and added criteria you expect, then these "achievement levels" would have much more merit. I am pretty sure I am familiar with the types of individuals you are talking about here, but years of experience is one of the worst measures of, well experience. Years of experience is one of the larger generalizations we make in our industry. One that i…

10 years of experience does not equate to a great violinist, but I don't know any great violin players without it. I started writing code at a young age, got a CS degree, and after graduating my first 3 months I was more productive than some people I have worked with with 5 years experience. I created something that a significant fraction of people I have worked with would have been unable to think of. However, I had…

You don't need 10 years, you need 10,000 hours. However, 10,000 hours alone is still a useless metric unless you know it was spent learning. 10,000 hours fixing bugs in the same system won't introduce you to enough new concepts to provide the same value of 10,000 hours of building products.

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#26

Post by EwanToo »

michaelochurch wrote: post #11
EwanToo wrote: post #6

I'm quite glad he says "tongue firmly planted in cheek", because the idea that a successful programmers are "Programmers who are both well known and have created entire businesses – perhaps even whole industries – around their code." is just plain silly. I think what he means by success is "money", which might well work for him, but doesn't for many others.

I thought this was pretty insightful: These programmers have given themselves the real freedom zero: the freedom to decide for themselves what they want to work on. That is what it means to be successful. If you don't decide for yourself how you work, what you work on, and when, you're not a successful person. Perhaps as a statement about the shoddy state of our society, he includes the assumption that one has to be…

I'm pretty sure I'd consider Richard Stallman and Linus Torsvald to be "successful", without being business owners.

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#28

Post by wiceo »

I felt like the results should have been ordered in reverse (least successful to most successful), with 'amateur' ranking before 'unknown'. It seemed like it started with the best, and just gave me worse options the further I read.

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#30

Post by utopkara »

michaelochurch wrote: post #16

I actually thought this piece was pretty well-crafted. The fact that it's a parody of an artist hierarchy only makes it better, in my view. I like the fact that, for the most part, the hierarchy has little to do with actual coding competence and a lot more to do with reputation and business acumen. (I like it in the sense that I might Facebook "Like" an article on a natural disaster. I don't like the fact that it's t…

I really like the multiplier vs adder differentiation. I would also acknowledge the solid global adders, as those who contribute to respectable open source projects.
Post reply on HN