I am a programmer • Hacker News Board

Re: I am a programmer

#101

Post by kstenerud » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 7:08 PM UTC

javert wrote: post #99

kstenerud wrote: post #60

"We're middle-men (and women), glorified translators" By that rationale, teachers are glorified dictionaries, accountants are glorified calculators, and lawyers are glorified secretaries. "Programmers don't 'unemploy' people" Bullshit. If I build an automated fraud detection system for a bank and they lay off 50 people in charge of fraud detection after it goes live, I most certainly made their jobs redundant. If I b…

Efficiency kills jobs by definition. Yes, efficiency kills (old, existing) jobs, but that gives new leverage to expand production beyond what it was before. That's why the wheel, the industrial revolution, etc. have all increased the well-being of the world, not decreased it. It's called progress.

"Yes, efficiency kills (old, existing) jobs, but that gives new leverage to expand production beyond what it was before."

This is moving beyond the original point, but since we're here...

When increased efficiency kills jobs, the now jobless need to move onto some other form of employment. We saw this happen in migrations from farming to factory jobs, and now from factory jobs to service jobs. That area is safe for now since it's still hard to increase efficiency in services such as grooming, food preparation, entertainment, driving, and yard trimmers, compared with industrial production.

So there's still a certain stability in the current system that is not disrupted by emerging efficiencies, but that won't last forever. Eventually, even the services industry will become efficient, at which point the trend of jobs becoming scarce will accelerate to the point where it becomes impossible to employ everyone, unless you start inventing "busy work" jobs or change the work-to-live dynamic.

I'm neither calling it good nor bad; I'm just highlighting the need to come to terms with it, because it will come regardless of our preparation.

Re: I am a programmer

#102

Post by jessedhillon » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 7:13 PM UTC

I've been re-reading the Gervais Principle series[0] recently, so I can't help but to construe both the original essay[1] and this response in terms of Sociopath, Clueless and Loser dynamics.

The original essay could also be called "A Loser's Guide To Careers" -- it's a realistic assessment of the options and opportunities offered to most engineers. It recognizes that most readers will be, in the grand scheme of things, on the short end of the stick and will have relatively little to bargain with. Accordingly, it dispenses cold, rational advice for how to best bargain with that limited leverage.

Both the Sociopath and the Loser are realists, it's only that the Loser has little meaningful leverage; he accepts this and so makes the best time-money bargain he can negotiate.

The Clueless, however, is clueless -- he would like to believe he is making a difference by keeping his head down, working hard and following the rules; instead, he is setup to be a mediocre middle manager at best, and a scapegoat at worst. And this essay could best be called "A Clueless Defense." That is not meant to slight any of Jacques technical achievements or prowess. Instead, I apply the term "clueless" here to mean that Jacques is being hopelessly naive. This essay is essentially a celebration of Jacques refusal to accept the situation in which he and other engineers find themselves: a world where those who hold the largest stakes (in any venture we choose to participate in) generally have no clue what value we provide and are incented to reduce our stakes.

(Yes, there are exceptions, even successful ones, and I think I work at one of those. But I don't blindly believe it, and I wouldn't bet my life or my family's future on it.)

I could write a lot more about my feelings on "I am a programmer,": I don't like it. I've already said that I find it naive and I don't want to cause unnecessary offense. Still, I commend Jacques for writing it at all and there's no reason to alienate him in disagreement, because it's an honest expression of his feelings. But I do want to say that, as a worldview, the idea of it being useful for understanding the trajectory of your career... well, I'm reminded of a line from the Futurama episode "Love and Rocket":

"Oh I would dearly love to believe that were true. So I do."

(And also -- the original essay has nothing to do with job titles.)

[0] http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o... [1] http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-pro...

Re: I am a programmer

#103

Post by freemarketteddy » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 7:20 PM UTC

lubos wrote: post #16

I'm a software developer... who cares, really... to outsiders we are weird kind of folks no matter what

haha true....When I talk to women at Bars...I am an iPhone/iPad Artist....They dont realize that that involves tweaking LLVM flags and debugging segmentation faults haha!

Re: I am a programmer

#104

Post by javert » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 7:32 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #101

javert wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Efficiency kills jobs by definition. Yes, efficiency kills (old, existing) jobs, but that gives new leverage to expand production beyond what it was before. That's why the wheel, the industrial revolution, etc. have all increased the well-being of the world, not decreased it. It's called progress.

"Yes, efficiency kills (old, existing) jobs, but that gives new leverage to expand production beyond what it was before." This is moving beyond the original point, but since we're here... When increased efficiency kills jobs, the now jobless need to move onto some other form of employment. We saw this happen in migrations from farming to factory jobs, and now from factory jobs to service jobs. That area is safe for n…

I'm neither calling it good nor bad

That's the real issue at stake. You should be calling it good, because it's progress.

It's somewhat conceivable that there can be times in future human history where there are large chunks of people who aren't capable of doing any productive work, but they probably won't be lasting. [1]

And for everyone who can find productive work, more efficiency in the global economy enables more production, thus more progress, and is therefore a plus.

[1] Partially because if we do things right, population will gracefully degrade in times when fewer jobs are available. (I'm not advocating more social controls to achieve this; providing additional money per-child to those on welfare, for example, goes strongly against this.)

Re: I am a programmer

#105

Post by mgkimsal » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 8:13 PM UTC

mechanical_fish wrote: post #57

johnyzee wrote: post #26

The problem I have with Patrick's essay ("you are not a programmer") is that it addresses a situation that hardly any developer ever finds himself in. If I go to interview for an engineer position, it matters exactly not one bit that I try to pass myself off as a solutions architect or a business problem solver, except for possibly some awkward glances back and forth. All they want to know is how long I've been codin…

a situation that hardly any developer ever finds himself in "To a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish." (Sorry, have actual work to do today, so I'm going to reply mainly in epigrams where I can. ;) pass myself off as... a business problem solver Nobody is suggesting that. You don't pretend to solve problems for your business. At least, the business doesn't think so. They pay you. They don't pay people just…

Nobody is suggesting that. You don't pretend to solve problems for your business. At least, the business doesn't think so. They pay you. They don't pay people just for fun. They obviously think you're solving some kind of problem, right now.

Well, often the 'problem' as such is "lack of programmers". The business value/problem has already defined by other people, and a solution decided on, and you need to code it. At least, that's the position I'd been in in the past. I might have come up with a clever algorithm that solved a particular internal problem on that project, but the overarching project being worked on wasn't really solving the original business problem that was presented. However, as lowly-coder-#17, no one really cares what your views are - the problem you're solving is manpower to implement someone else's vision, right or wrong.

Re: I am a programmer

#106

Post by kstenerud » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 8:45 PM UTC

javert wrote: post #104

kstenerud wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yes, efficiency kills (old, existing) jobs, but that gives new leverage to expand production beyond what it was before." This is moving beyond the original point, but since we're here... When increased efficiency kills jobs, the now jobless need to move onto some other form of employment. We saw this happen in migrations from farming to factory jobs, and now from factory jobs to service jobs. That area is safe for n…

I'm neither calling it good nor bad That's the real issue at stake. You should be calling it good, because it's progress. It's somewhat conceivable that there can be times in future human history where there are large chunks of people who aren't capable of doing any productive work, but they probably won't be lasting. [1] And for everyone who can find productive work, more efficiency in the global economy enables mor…

I'm not calling it good because I just don't see the graceful transition occurring. If anything, I see massive upheaval because almost everyone will deny the reality around them until it becomes impossible to do so.

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. However, we don't live in a perfect world.

Re: I am a programmer

#107

Post by piccadilly » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 9:01 PM UTC

Androsynth wrote: post #97

johnyzee wrote: post #26

The problem I have with Patrick's essay ("you are not a programmer") is that it addresses a situation that hardly any developer ever finds himself in. If I go to interview for an engineer position, it matters exactly not one bit that I try to pass myself off as a solutions architect or a business problem solver, except for possibly some awkward glances back and forth. All they want to know is how long I've been codin…

You did not understand Patrick's essay. He did not say give yourself a ridiculously fancy sounding title. He said tell them what you've done in the past and give yourself a title that engenders respect from your non-hacker friends. For example, if you tell people you are a software architect and you designed the system that made your company X million dollars, you will get respect. If you don't spend at least some ti…

It only gets respect because it's a kind of lie. You aren't an architect. You aren't an engineer. You write code, making up programs.

A secretary is a secretary. If people decided that's a bad thing to be, that's a shame. But it doesn't help to change the word to 'administrator,' which means something different.

Re: I am a programmer

#108

Post by javert » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 9:17 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #106

javert wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm neither calling it good nor bad That's the real issue at stake. You should be calling it good, because it's progress. It's somewhat conceivable that there can be times in future human history where there are large chunks of people who aren't capable of doing any productive work, but they probably won't be lasting. [1] And for everyone who can find productive work, more efficiency in the global economy enables mor…

I'm not calling it good because I just don't see the graceful transition occurring. If anything, I see massive upheaval because almost everyone will deny the reality around them until it becomes impossible to do so. In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. However, we don't live in a perfect world.

Do you have any ideas on how to avoid or cope with this massive upheaval?

Re: I am a programmer

#109

Post by javert » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 9:24 PM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #102

I've been re-reading the Gervais Principle series[0] recently, so I can't help but to construe both the original essay[1] and this response in terms of Sociopath, Clueless and Loser dynamics. The original essay could also be called "A Loser's Guide To Careers" -- it's a realistic assessment of the options and opportunities offered to most engineers. It recognizes that most readers will be, in the grand scheme of thin…

Responding to "The Gervais Principle":

Categorizing everyone who works in the modern economy as either a "sociopath," "clueless," or a "loser" is utterly ridiculous and deeply offensive.

Moreover, "The Office" is not a basis for drawing general conclusions about the working world.

This very rarely happens, but I'm not willing to finish reading an article that spouts this kind of hogwash.

Re: I am a programmer

#110

Post by HeyLaughingBoy » Tue, Nov 01, 2011, 9:26 PM UTC

xiaoma wrote: post #27

akie wrote: post #17

I am a programmer, but I am not a programmer. The problem is, 'programming' as such is the end of a process. That process begins with talking to a customer about his or her idea/business problem, and asking questions and (basically) doing consulting to help the customer understand what his or her problem really is. Once that's clear, I write a proposal that outlines how I would address that problem, all in strictly h…

> And then, finally, three months since that first meeting, I can start with the programming. In my world (iOS), if it takes you three months to even start moving, you'll miss the market opportunities far too often. 3 months ago, iOS5 storyboarding and multitasking weren't even a concern and most developers were split between Xcode 3.x and 4.0!

And as a data point from a completely different industry, it can take me three months to get approval to fix a bug.

Apples, meet oranges.