Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
blogoscoped.com
Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
#2Larry Wall, is that you?
Re: Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
#3The Google/Yahoo comparison is somewhat invalid - Yahoo is a portal, Google is strictly a search engine. Look at the "portalized" version of Google (i.e., iGoogle) and the similarities start surfacing.
I work for one of the top 25 sites on the tubes, and our homepage is also fairly busy looking. But it also has been relentlessly verified via both user testing and aggregate data analysis. UI guys hate when these numbers come out - but clean and elegant is not always the most efficient UI (for various definitions of efficient).
Re: Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
#4"Lazy" I get, but when he says "dumb" I think "humble" conveys the idea better. You shouldn't be "too smart", but that's not the same thing as being dumb. Letting go of preconceived notions to get to the root of a problem may involve "playing dumb", but that's still not the same thing.
Still, "dumb" sounds less chest-beating than "humble" (ironically enough) so if you think you're not humble enough about being humble, by all means start calling yourself dumb instead. :-)
Re: Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
#5This is a really convoluted way of conveying a few simple concepts: 1) automate what you can and 2) keep your mind and perspective fresh by continuous learning.
I don't see why we need to redefine the words lazy and dumb. Truly lazy and dumb programmers don't really accomplish much.
Re: Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
#6The Google/Yahoo comparison is somewhat invalid - Yahoo is a portal, Google is strictly a search engine. Look at the "portalized" version of Google (i.e., iGoogle) and the similarities start surfacing. I work for one of the top 25 sites on the tubes, and our homepage is also fairly busy looking. But it also has been relentlessly verified via both user testing and aggregate data analysis. UI guys hate when these numbe…
They also have completely different markets, and I'm annoyed by the number of times I see the Google search page trotted out as an example of what people want. Most of the users I deal with on a daily basis have their homepage set to either their Yahoo page, or their msn page, or something similar.
I don't think I've yet to sit down at a user's computer and find their homepage set to Google's search page.
Unless, of course, they installed Firefox and then forgot it was there.
Re: Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
#7I agree with lazy but dumb I do not think so. In fact I think that good programmers are lazy and smart.
Re: Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
#8lazy
True. I tend to get things done with less effort than my peers and I don't think it has to do with being smart. I just have an all round better understanding of the surrounding tools/ideas of a problem.
When a lot of people have a project in front of them, I see them jumping in with both feet with a very narrow focus. Afraid of going off in tangents.
Me? I spend most of my time sitting around drinking coffee. Walking. Reading useful stuff on the internet.
I've seen it written before: learn to procrastinate well. I think that's a better way of putting it, no real need to be too derogatory.
Re: Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
#9"Lazy" I get, but when he says "dumb" I think "humble" conveys the idea better. You shouldn't be "too smart", but that's not the same thing as being dumb. Letting go of preconceived notions to get to the root of a problem may involve "playing dumb", but that's still not the same thing. Still, "dumb" sounds less chest-beating than "humble" (ironically enough) so if you think you're not humble enough about being humble…
I would have preferred "experienced" instead of "dumb". His examples still apply if you replace the latter with the former.
Re: Why Good Programmers Are Lazy and Dumb
#10"Lazy" I get, but when he says "dumb" I think "humble" conveys the idea better. You shouldn't be "too smart", but that's not the same thing as being dumb. Letting go of preconceived notions to get to the root of a problem may involve "playing dumb", but that's still not the same thing. Still, "dumb" sounds less chest-beating than "humble" (ironically enough) so if you think you're not humble enough about being humble…
I would have preferred "experienced" instead of "dumb". His examples still apply if you replace the latter with the former.
But "experienced" is another one of those glowing words (like "smart") that emphasizes you knew your way around in the past. This is an external marker, something other people judge you by and you can advertise with. When you have to solve actual problems, it's no good to think of yourself as smart and experienced, because that will only frustrate you if your amazing talents don't immediately suggest a solution. Taking yourself out of the equation and treating each problem by its own merits rather than your own merits is what's required, and that's the point of the "lazy" and "dumb" epithets: they're a deliberate kick to your ego, something programmers can usually use less of. Your talents can take care of themselves.