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

Levels of programmers (2009)

codinghorror.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#31

Post by michaelochurch »

utopkara wrote: post #30
michaelochurch wrote: post #16

I actually thought this piece was pretty well-crafted. The fact that it's a parody of an artist hierarchy only makes it better, in my view. I like the fact that, for the most part, the hierarchy has little to do with actual coding competence and a lot more to do with reputation and business acumen. (I like it in the sense that I might Facebook "Like" an article on a natural disaster. I don't like the fact that it's t…

I really like the multiplier vs adder differentiation. I would also acknowledge the solid global adders, as those who contribute to respectable open source projects.

Global adders, I would argue, are multipliers because high-quality software makes a lot of people more effective.

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#32

Post by nsmartt »

ChristianMarks wrote: post #27

"Very few programmers ever achieve this level [1, the dead programmer] in their own lifetimes." That's because they're dead.

While the name says 'dead programmers,' he doesn't specify that a programmer must have died to reach that status.

2 of the examples he provides are living.

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#33

Post by michaelochurch »

EwanToo wrote: post #26
michaelochurch wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this was pretty insightful: These programmers have given themselves the real freedom zero: the freedom to decide for themselves what they want to work on. That is what it means to be successful. If you don't decide for yourself how you work, what you work on, and when, you're not a successful person. Perhaps as a statement about the shoddy state of our society, he includes the assumption that one has to be…

I'm pretty sure I'd consider Richard Stallman and Linus Torsvald to be "successful", without being business owners.

Right, and I acknowledged that in mentioning Valve. What you need is the freedom to work on what you want. Those guys are sufficiently well established as to have it. But that's very rare.

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#34

Post by JasonFruit »

michaelochurch wrote: post #16

I actually thought this piece was pretty well-crafted. The fact that it's a parody of an artist hierarchy only makes it better, in my view. I like the fact that, for the most part, the hierarchy has little to do with actual coding competence and a lot more to do with reputation and business acumen. (I like it in the sense that I might Facebook "Like" an article on a natural disaster. I don't like the fact that it's t…

All of your levels above High Worker are really unappealing to me; they sound like the Peter Principle at work. You're a skilled computer scientist, so you must be good at handling people too, right?

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#36

Post by ajross »

I don't like the framing in some of this. Distinguishing "famous" from "successful" (and putting the latter above it on the ladder) seems to be missing the point. It's all well and good to celebrate Carmack and DHH, who are worthy of praise. But kicking, say, Fabrice Bellard or Tridge down a level purely because of what they choose to work on seems to be missing an awful lot of value...

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#38

Post by dpritchett »

JasonFruit wrote: post #34
michaelochurch wrote: post #16

I actually thought this piece was pretty well-crafted. The fact that it's a parody of an artist hierarchy only makes it better, in my view. I like the fact that, for the most part, the hierarchy has little to do with actual coding competence and a lot more to do with reputation and business acumen. (I like it in the sense that I might Facebook "Like" an article on a natural disaster. I don't like the fact that it's t…

All of your levels above High Worker are really unappealing to me; they sound like the Peter Principle at work. You're a skilled computer scientist, so you must be good at handling people too, right?

That's precisely the point. Non-programmers are largely uninterested in the technical abilities separating 90th percentile coders from 99th percentile coders. It's only when you simultaneously demonstrate worth on an orthogonal axis (e.g. management) that people start to assume you're a top-tier dev.

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#39

Post by rileywatkins »

jwdunne wrote: post #21

From my experience, 'Where do you see yourself in 5 years?' actually helps me quite a lot. The jokers are obvious, the money-chasers are obvious and the people who genuinely love what they do are obvious. As an example, here are two two extremes of answers I've heard: "perhaps leading my own team, perhaps even starting my company" and "doing what I love: computers". The first one tells me that the candidate isn't int…

When I consider what my own answer to that question might be, I think the "doing what I love: computers" answer is a given. It's completely obvious to me that I'll still be doing what I love in 5 years. I usually take the question to mean, "Where do you expect to progress to in 5 years?"

Surely I'll still be doing what I love, but I hope I grow to take on more responsibility. If I'm not growing in my ability, then I might just be a bad programmer, and I probably don't love it anyway.

If I answer with "perhaps leading my own team", does that mean I don't love computers? (Nope.)

Re: Levels of programmers (2009)

#40

Post by danielweber »

One big problem with the laddering system (I know he doesn't intend to promote it) is that it encourages people to try to build the next Ruby-on-Rails. Whereas in the majority of cases, both the individual and the society are better off by taking an existing tool and doing gradual improvements to it.

No one gets to be "successful" by updating someone else's idea, though.

http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html "going through the bug list isn't fun; but rewriting everything from scratch is fun"

Post reply on HN