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

How individual contributors get stuck (2017)

elidedbranches.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 97 posts

Re: How individual contributors get stuck (2017)

#11

Post by codingdave »

RC_ITR wrote: post #5
paganel wrote: post #4

Maybe a little meta, but when did the programmers -> individual contributors transition happen? Until a few years ago saying and writing "programmers" on forums like HN was still prevalent, and then, after a certain moment, I started seeing "ICs" more and more.

Well, it was easy to be part of a team (even if you weren't really) when you were physically collocated with said team. But now, unless you really really are part of that team, you are an IC. Programming, by nature of what it is and who does it, always had a bunch of IC's, but now the phenomenon is more clear due to remote (which is something I recommend a lot of people on here thing about as they design their career…

That isn't what IC means - it means "not management". You do your job, whatever that may be and whomever you may be teamed with, but do not have direct reports.

Re: How individual contributors get stuck (2017)

#12

Post by yrgulation »

paganel wrote: post #4

Maybe a little meta, but when did the programmers -> individual contributors transition happen? Until a few years ago saying and writing "programmers" on forums like HN was still prevalent, and then, after a certain moment, I started seeing "ICs" more and more.

Terminology copied from large code factories and assembly lines, such as google, facebook and other modern day Chryslers and Fords. Beats "worker" or "resource".

Re: How individual contributors get stuck (2017)

#13

Post by [deleted] »

codingdave wrote: post #11
RC_ITR wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it was easy to be part of a team (even if you weren't really) when you were physically collocated with said team. But now, unless you really really are part of that team, you are an IC. Programming, by nature of what it is and who does it, always had a bunch of IC's, but now the phenomenon is more clear due to remote (which is something I recommend a lot of people on here thing about as they design their career…

That isn't what IC means - it means "not management". You do your job, whatever that may be and whomever you may be teamed with, but do not have direct reports.

[deleted]

Re: How individual contributors get stuck (2017)

#14

Post by saddd »

RC_ITR wrote: post #5
paganel wrote: post #4

Maybe a little meta, but when did the programmers -> individual contributors transition happen? Until a few years ago saying and writing "programmers" on forums like HN was still prevalent, and then, after a certain moment, I started seeing "ICs" more and more.

Well, it was easy to be part of a team (even if you weren't really) when you were physically collocated with said team. But now, unless you really really are part of that team, you are an IC. Programming, by nature of what it is and who does it, always had a bunch of IC's, but now the phenomenon is more clear due to remote (which is something I recommend a lot of people on here thing about as they design their career…

I'm not sure what you mean. In a corporate job ladder, anyone who isn't strictly a manager and writes at least SOME code is classified as an IC. That's not to say that there are no managers who also write code, though.

Re: How individual contributors get stuck (2017)

#15

Post by Trasmatta »

Aqueous wrote: post #6

When I've gotten stuck it's usually because the previous engineer completely screwed up the data structure design and in doing so made it impossible to change. This boxes me in because I can't implement the feature in an architecturally sound way without a significant refactor. This has happened to me many times.

Oh God this is where I'm at now. A series of questionable decisions over the past 7 years have now solidified our codebase into a horrible set of patterns that make even adding a single new database column that we need to feed to the frontend a Herculean task. It's so demotivating.

Re: How individual contributors get stuck (2017)

#16

Post by cecilpl2 »

Aqueous wrote: post #6

When I've gotten stuck it's usually because the previous engineer completely screwed up the data structure design and in doing so made it impossible to change. This boxes me in because I can't implement the feature in an architecturally sound way without a significant refactor. This has happened to me many times.

Please take this the right way, but blaming your predecessors is not a productive mindset, nor is it really the topic of this post.

Re: How individual contributors get stuck (2017)

#17

Post by cheschire »

itsmemattchung wrote: post #2

> Noticing how people get stuck is a super power, and one that many great tech leads (and yes, managers) rely on to get big things done Taking it one step further. Noticing how you — yourself — get stuck is a superpower. But it's hard...really hard. When I get stuck on troubleshooting an issue, I can sometimes fall in this trap that my wife calls the "blackhole." I obsess over it. I cannot rid the problem from my min…

This is why I start wordle in the morning, and if I don't feel "close" after 3 guesses, I put it away until the evening.

Re: How individual contributors get stuck (2017)

#19

Post by ervine »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #16
Aqueous wrote: post #6

When I've gotten stuck it's usually because the previous engineer completely screwed up the data structure design and in doing so made it impossible to change. This boxes me in because I can't implement the feature in an architecturally sound way without a significant refactor. This has happened to me many times.

Please take this the right way, but blaming your predecessors is not a productive mindset, nor is it really the topic of this post.

Eh, sometimes the predecessor is me, the fact that a large refactor remains between me and the end goal is still a blocker.
Post reply on HN