Super-star programmers • Hacker News Board

Re: Super-star programmers

#111

Post by evincarofautumn » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 4:17 AM UTC

excuse-me wrote: post #105

to3m wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to say, I was more hoping for the groupies and gak myself. A million-dollar salary from a programming role is so unrealistic.

I suppose it depends on what kind of rock star. Words never heard backstage = "That's the banjo players Ferrari", "That supermodel is sleeping with the drummer"

Not sure about that—a lot of famous guitarists were originally pickers, and while the electric guitar may be a sexier instrument, most of the drummers I’ve known have actually been very attractive.

Re: Super-star programmers

#112

Post by EternalFury » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 4:20 AM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #54

zainny wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have to be a pretty shallow person to be motivated by the idea of being called a rock star programmer. I specifically do not applied for positions that are advertised in this way.

I'm just guessing here, but I bet its more about communicating a shared perspective on software development than people thinking they're actually "rock stars". When a job ad says "looking for rock stars to blow a hole in the universe", you would be a fool to take that literally. But its along the lines of a "secret handshake" that lets both parties know something about the other in as few words as possible. A job pos…

It's nonsense. I recoil every time I see a job description like that. Anyone who believes in those mythical rock star programmers has a serious problem and I certainly don't want to be part of it.

Re: Super-star programmers

#113

Post by eli_gottlieb » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 4:24 AM UTC

MartinCron wrote: post #74

calinet6 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we please stop using the term "rock star?" It's getting old. This idea that a single programmer is somehow so much better or superior may have its merits, but it's harmful to your overall business if you put all your weight on that single support. You have to accept that above a certain number, your employees will fall on a bell-curve of ability, and you should support the efficiency and productiveness of the ent…

You forgot "drug addicted".

And skirt-chasing, and very likely to refer to everyone as "bro" or "braw".

Re: Super-star programmers

#114

Post by curiousDog » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 5:58 AM UTC

presidentender wrote: post #50

I can think of one real, actual, verifiable superstar: Steve Yegge. There are more, but I don't know who they are. Taking his blogs at face value, and assuming that my sample size of 1 is enough, here's what I've got: "Superstars" get things done because they get things done. They may be ADD in their multitude of projects or in their personal lives, but while they're producing, they produce. They don't fuck around on…

Haha Steve Yegge, hilarious! I'd agree he's a good programmer. A guy I knew at Google interviewed him and he was rejected after the hiring committee meeting. He had to try again 6 months later to get in.

Re: Super-star programmers

#115

Post by Ygg2 » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 8:30 AM UTC

jere wrote: post #108

forgotAgain wrote: post #4

As I reached about half way through the article I got bored and my mind starting having stray thoughts - god this is long. Isn't it ironic that a superstar programmer would have been bored by now and stopped reading. - momentarily after that, I guess I just admitted that I'm not s superstar programmer. - momentarily after that, I wonder if there are writers who can transmit ten times as much information using one ten…

You might be interested in The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains http://www.amazon.com/The-Shallows-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/... I'm reading it right now and, if nothing else, can totally relate to "I can't concentrate on things very well anymore" feeling.

Oh, no... Not that thing again.I don't want to go too much off topic but to quote xkcd "More harm has come from people decrying societal decline, than societal decline ever has."

I like how Carr's own sentiment mirror the sentiment of people who thought books will stop people from remembering things. And he wants us to return to books?

Re: Super-star programmers

#116

Post by Ygg2 » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 8:50 AM UTC

evilbit wrote: post #65

one aspect this "superstar"-worship drivel^Harticle seems to ignore is the organizational contribution to success. i'd argue that individual contribution to any given project of substance is greatly overestimated, while contribution of the team (organization/culture/whatever) is unfairly underestimated. even in professional sports, superstar a winning team does not make.

True, I remember one study (I can't recall the link sadly) that measured performance of several programming teams and found strong correlation between women in workforce and team performance.

Another study in the book "Imagine" by Lehrer Jonah implies that creativity depends on the Q factor, inside a group. Here is a quote: "Uzzi’s data clearly demonstrates that the best Broadway shows were produced with intermediate levels of social intimacy. A musical produced at the ideal level of Q (2.6) was two and a half times more likely to be a commercial success than a musical produced with a low Q (3.2). It was also three times more likely to be lauded by the critics."

I can see how hiring only rockstars which probably knew each other would increase the Q beyond the ideal level.

Re: Super-star programmers

#117

Post by dalke » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 11:31 AM UTC

jdlshore wrote: post #110

dalke wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read Bossavit's book. I have read McConnell's writings. Chapter 30 of "Making Software: What Really Works, and Why We Believe It" is by him, and edited by Andy Oram and Greg Wilson. The point of the book was to collect scientific evidence. I know Greg, and his high standards, so I strongly doubt that McConnell's evidence of weak. I'm immediately suspicious of the statement you quoted: "Not a single one of t…

Bossavit's book comes after McConnell's reply, and goes into more depth than the essay McConnell is replying to. Personally, I found the book more convincing. And having read what Bossavit had to go through to verify McConnell's references, I'm not convinced Greg Wilson did the same. Rather than try to defend someone else's words, though, I'll just direct you to the book. You're going into a lot of detail critiquing…

I would rather not. As it turns out, I haven't even finished reading "Making Software", not for lack of the quality of the essays but because my interest in this area isn't as high as I thought it would be.

I can be convinced otherwise for this one case. Could you elaborate for me on why my critique on these points is unjustified? Why is sufficient scientific evidence for to Bossavit? Why does the Internet necessarily discard older studies, and how does Bossavit establish that that's the case?

Re: Super-star programmers

#118

Post by MortenK » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 2:24 PM UTC

jdlshore wrote: post #29

I'm disappointed to see the 10x programmer meme hit a publication like the Economist. There's no scientific evidence of 10x differences in programmer productivity. To quote Laurent Bossavit [1], who's investigated the studies people like McConnell use: "How strong is the support conferred to the 10x claim by the best-reputed list of references, for a reader persistent enough to follow the chain of citations back to p…

Looks at Spolskys article "Hitting the high notes" which is based on Yale prof. Stanley Eistenstat's meticolously gathered data of time spent among students for programming assignments.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html

Re: Super-star programmers

#119

Post by jere » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 5:14 PM UTC

Ygg2 wrote: post #115

jere wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be interested in The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains http://www.amazon.com/The-Shallows-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/... I'm reading it right now and, if nothing else, can totally relate to "I can't concentrate on things very well anymore" feeling.

Oh, no... Not that thing again.I don't want to go too much off topic but to quote xkcd "More harm has come from people decrying societal decline, than societal decline ever has." I like how Carr's own sentiment mirror the sentiment of people who thought books will stop people from remembering things. And he wants us to return to books?

Ugh, no. I suppose you've extrapolated quite a bit from the title. Carr thinks the benefits of the internet are massive, undeniable, and (probably) inevitable.

He's simply pointing out evidence that our tools change the way we think. He makes the same point about clocks, maps, books, etc.

The book has zilch to do with societal decline in the sense you mean it.

Re: Super-star programmers

#120

Post by batista » Sat, Jun 16, 2012, 6:14 PM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #87

jdlshore wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the tricky thing about productivity, isn't it? You said that those domain-specific programmers were "not great at producing code," but I would argue (with tongue firmly in cheek) that in fact they were the productive ones, and you were not. Let me explain. Productivity is defined as output over input. Programming input is activity--usually, time working--and output is software capability (or, more generally, b…

You pointed out that productivity can't be measured (though that hasn't stopped you from invoking the concept). Something else that can't be measured? "Business value". Let alone the "business value" of an individual programmer's commits.

>Something else that can't be measured? "Business value".

If it makes money, it has business value, in my book. If it makes MORE money, it has more business value.

Actually it might be the ONLY measurable thing in the whole discussion.