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

I am a programmer

jacquesmattheij.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 130 posts

Re: I am a programmer

#111

Post by pnathan »

mechanical_fish wrote: post #65
TheCapn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel that is the wrong way to approach things. Your job as a programmer was to provide that deliverable as set out by your position. You programmed it and it went along. The outcome of that deliverable was the improvement but your job was to construct it. I don't pretend that my past jobs were "automating IPTV interface interactions" or "enabling alternative business transaction venues"... I was programming what wa…

It is hard for those of us who know how to tinker to appreciate that there really are folks who don't tinker. You assign them to pull the levers, and they pull the levers. If the machine they're running is manifestly inefficient, they don't notice, or they pretend not to notice. (Or – if they're good – they adapt themselves , adopting a complex series of difficult physical and mental moves to compensate for the machi…

This is true. I know someone who has bluntly me told me they don't want to think at their job.

Re: I am a programmer

#112

Post by piccadilly »

emmelaich wrote: post #25

There's an inverse snobbery in effect here to an extent. If you've made it / made a name for yourself you can call yourself a programmer. I don't know know whether it was the recently departed dmr or ken, but one of them answered 'programmer' when asked what he put as a profession on his landing/visa/immigration card.

That isn't because they were so big that they could say programmer, it is because that is what it used to be called before self-promotion inflated all job titles to the point of hyperbole.

Re: I am a programmer

#113

Post by sounds »

javert wrote: post #108
kstenerud wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I agree with you javert, that increased efficiency and productivity are good things. But I do so for a fairly uncommon reason: I think that we have very little idea of the capacity of one person.

Our economy is still marked by massive disruption: technological innovation isn't just limited to services. Process engineering, chemical engineering, astronomy, physics, linguistics, archeology, ... they're all experiencing disruption at an increasing pace. They all increase GDP.

To me, this is an indication that as we provide people with powerful tools, their minds expand to use those tools. The exponential feedback may become much more smooth (less "disruptive") but I think we're a long way from a local maximum.

The current economy still "feels" like an idling 2-stroke leaf blower to me. It sputters and races because its carburetor and ignition are, well, inefficient.

What would it take to get a jet engine-like economy?

Re: I am a programmer

#114

Post by piccadilly »

javert wrote: post #108
kstenerud wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Developed countries might provide a safety net and strong job retraining programs

Re: I am a programmer

#115

Post by javert »

sounds wrote: post #113
javert wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I agree with you javert, that increased efficiency and productivity are good things. But I do so for a fairly uncommon reason: I think that we have very little idea of the capacity of one person. Our economy is still marked by massive disruption: technological innovation isn't just limited to services. Process engineering, chemical engineering, astronomy, physics, linguistics, archeology, ... they're all experiencing…

I like what you're saying.

However, you're not answering your comment's grandparent: how to avoid, cope with, or assume away the concern that a super-high-tech economy will leave unemployed people who aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to participate.

Re: I am a programmer

#116

Post by jessedhillon »

javert wrote: post #109
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.

I understand your initial reaction, but you obviously haven't read enough of this massive five-part essay to have an informed opinion. It elaborates a theory of power politics which, in my experience, has immense explanatory power.

The terms "sociopath," "clueless," or "loser" are selected for their efficiency, and are not value judgments.

Re: I am a programmer

#117

Post by kstenerud »

javert wrote: post #108
kstenerud wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not something I could come up with a reasonable answer to in short order...

One additional wrinkle will be the tendency of the poor to have more children than the rich, exacerbating the jobs-to-people ratio problem.

Re: I am a programmer

#118

Post by crazygringo »

javert wrote: post #109
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.

Have you read it? It would clearly appear you have not. And if not, you shouldn't be judging it, if you don't even understand (or address) the motivations behind those choices.

Re: I am a programmer

#119

Post by crazygringo »

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…

I'm not really convinced that this is a "Clueless Defense". That would be glorifying the job, like calling it software engineering. To the contrary, this essay seems to be quite self-aware of the "Loser" status, and saying -- hey guys, let's recognize what we are, and not delude ourselves into thinking we're something more.

Not saying I necessarily agree with this, but merely commenting on the interesting parellels. (I'm almost finished with the Gervais Principle series now, and it's fascinating.)

Re: I am a programmer

#120

Post by splicer »

Aloisius wrote: post #80
rcfox wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a computer engineer, with an iron ring and a bachelor's of applied science, I feel your pain. In Canada, there seems to be some respect given to the title, although it seems to be waning. In the UK, an engineer is someone who fixes your car or appliances. In the USA, an engineer is someone who writes PHP.

In the US, Professional Engineers are licensed through the state and are legally responsible for their work. If you engineer a bridge and it falls down because of a design problem, you are the one at fault. Until software engineers become legally responsible for crashes/data loss/etc. of their software and can be sued out of existence or go to prison because negligence, they will not demand the same respect that othe…

Apparently Texas, like Canada, considers software engineering a proper discipline of engineering, subject to the same regulations as other engineering disciplines: http://sce.uhcl.edu/helm/SWEBOK_IEEE/papers/10%20reprint%205...
Post reply on HN