Super-star programmers • Hacker News Board

Re: Super-star programmers

#71

Post by barrkel » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:05 PM UTC

zmj wrote: post #66

barrkel wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen developers who create, rather than reduce technical debt; who take longer to get familiar with codebases; have a hard time focusing in the presence of distractions; and who seem to have difficulty ramping up solution domain knowledge (i.e. programming / software engineering techniques). And all of these things seem to be down to individual ability or motivation, i.e. something about the person, rather than…

> I've seen developers who create, rather than reduce technical debt; who take longer to get familiar with codebases; have a hard time focusing in the presence of distractions; and who seem to have difficulty ramping up solution domain knowledge (i.e. programming / software engineering techniques). And all of these things seem to be down to individual ability or motivation, i.e. something about the person, rather tha…

My worthless opinion is based on about 20 years of newsgroup / forum membership, but the few years I spent working in companies whose software product was a cost centre for its customers was particularly enlightening. We (the guys working on framework / architecture stuff) tried to grow some of the people from the domain-specific side of things into roles on our side of things. It was an uphill struggle; these people weren't interested in it. Code didn't excite them, at all. They might as well have been shovelling fast food for all the love of craft they had. They came in at 8:30, got their work done, and went home at 5:30.

But the work they did? It would have bored me to tears. I would have quit had I had to do it; or perhaps, I would have surreptitiously built a framework or macro system or something to remove the redundancy and repetition from the tasks and indirectly reducing the tedium of the workload, rather than doing it more explicitly in what I was actually doing (developing the v.next framework for the company). But there's only so much redundancy you can squeeze out of many of these things (turning business rules from specifications into code) before you create too much complexity elsewhere. We still need lots of these people doing this boring work (most software development does not occur in software companies), and it's good that they're expert in the business rules they're translating. At the end of the day, it's OK that they're not great at producing code.

Of course, my opinions are completely invalid because they are generalized from limited experience, have no scientific value, etc. But it's the world I've lived, so I'd have to see decent studies and censuses to convince me otherwise.

Re: Super-star programmers

#72

Post by marshallp » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:06 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #67

marshallp wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of amazing software that has not been created yet is "CRUD". Why developers keep thinking the low level stuff is the good stuff. A huge class of such systems that are waiting to be created are crowd labor systems. How do you create leaderless organizations that produce what google or boeing or walmart produces and that compensates individuals for performance. The answer today is a messy unorganized marke…

The answer, of course, is that the "good stuff" is subjective (and almost never aligned with "the biggest value opportunities", ick). Yes, CRUD pays. Being able to make more CRUD in less time (and/or CRUD that is better performing or more maintainable, etc...) is a valuable skill. But it's boring . And more, it's just not impressive in the same way that, say, qemu/kvm is (or Mesa, or Linux, or llvm, etc...) That stuf…

I agree, the classic engineers like to work problems with an easily definable end result (so that business types don't tell them what to write).

It's a pity though, there's a huge space of products that are needed but the talent is going into slugging it out in societally useless and relatively low paying niches (such as many of the most talented programmers entering the game industry or social networking or linux kernels). Meanwhile dumbasses are raking in millions with shit like SAP and the like.

Re: Super-star programmers

#73

Post by MartinCron » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:11 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #55

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…

One of the better sources for these differences and their magnitude is Peopleware . Instead of citing vague research "somewhere", they did their own primary research. More specifically they set up coding wars where different programmers at different companies assigned to the same task independently. They found 10x differences in time spent on the average coding war (which was typically a pretty small sample) with tho…

The thing about these studies, which I do appreciate, is that they are measuring a programmer's ability to work on something:

1) Small.

2) By themselves.

3) Well understood and documented.

4) Doesn't have any threat of changing out from under them.

In the real world, the bottleneck usually isn't writing code, it's writing code that does the right thing and making the right people happy in the right way.

In some ways, trying to apply the lessons from Peopleware in the real world is like using your knowledge of unicorn anatomy to predict the Kentucky Derby.

Re: Super-star programmers

#74

Post by MartinCron » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:16 PM UTC

calinet6 wrote: post #16

noselasd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point that the term rock-star programmer doesn't mean they will produce world changing programs. It means they'll do an order of magnitude better/faster than their non-rockstar peers. That might be a bit contradicting to what Joel is explaining. From what I've experienced first hand, there's programmers that can produce similar code/software in a week that takes 5 mediocre programmers to produce in…

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".

Re: Super-star programmers

#75

Post by MartinCron » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:23 PM UTC

drharris wrote: post #6

Forgive potential ignorance here, but people often quote Joel Spolsky as saying things like: "...the trouble with using a lot of mediocre programmers instead of a couple of good ones is that no matter how long they strive, they will still produce something mediocre." What really genius-level things has Fog Creek done? I remember demoing FogBugz, and it was marginally better than its competitors, but it was far from a…

For a lot of developers, the how of making software can be as important as the what of making software. I've worked on casual games, bug trackers, retail signage databases, public outreach platforms, streaming media servers, and lolcat captioners.

And you know what? It's all about the same. It comes down to things like being respected, challenged, engaged, and working with people you like being around.

If Spolsky were to go slumming it and open an office in my town, I would be first in line to apply to work on FogBugz, and I don't care about the fancy chairs.

Re: Super-star programmers

#76

Post by larrys » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:30 PM UTC

randomdata wrote: post #70

larrys wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that certainly has to do with both business sense as well as the risk taking ability and what he feels comfortable with. To do something compelling you have to want to take that risk (which could result in spectacular success or failure). Joel might not want to bite off more than he can chew or he simply might not be creative enough to come up with anything "more compelling domain than bug tracking and PM". That…

That is why a good programmer needs to be around good business people Partnering with a business person for my next venture is something I'd like to try, but it's not exactly clear where you find a good business person who wants to partner up. The business people I am in contact with are already busy with their own things. Unlike a programer who might be presently doing the 9-5 corporate job, it seems like a good bus…

"where you find a good business person who wants to partner up"

My first question would be to ask you where you are located? Not sure if you want to reveal a specific city or not. Where you are matters.

"The business people I am in contact with are already busy with their own things."

True. Which is why you need to be somewhere where there is a chance of meeting people who are in between, recently graduated etc. There is also the possibility of someone who is employed full time starting to help and give advice on the side. When/if the venture takes off they would feel more secure in leaving their permanent job.

"it seems like a good business person will always be busy doing their own businesses, as that is what business people do."

You only need to find one person (it's like getting married). There are of course compatibility issues as well to consider.

"have much interest in building it if I'm also going to be responsible for selling it."

If you build it and it makes sense from a business perspective and have a prototype you can attract that one or two people you need. With just an idea of course you can't. Care to elaborate on the idea at all?

Re: Super-star programmers

#77

Post by larrys » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:37 PM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #56

drharris wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed; and my post was never intended to belittle Joel himself. He has provided great value to the industry in both capacities. I'm mainly challenging the notion that if he truly hires only developers he considers to be rockstars, then why doesn't the company have a more compelling domain than bug tracking and PM?

> a more compelling domain I think this gets to the heart of your bias. "Bug tracking and PM" is not compelling to you , but I suspect Joel and his hires find it a lot more fascinating than you do.

""Bug tracking and PM" is not compelling to you"

Not to answer someone else but I think what the parent means is that it's not original, unique, or greatly improving on whatever is already out there. (Is it?)

I mean it's kind of meat and potatoes addressing a problem that has been addressed and maybe doing it better.

Let me state that while I can program I am certainly not a programmer. But from my perspective it seems that Fog Creek, while a great company is not the place that a world class programmer would go to work on world class software. I mean this as no disrespect to Joel (who I admire greatly) or what he has done.

Using an analogy if you want to be in law enforcement are you going to work for the local big city police department or try to work for the secret service or the FBI?

Re: Super-star programmers

#78

Post by vbtemp » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:45 PM UTC

biot wrote: post #36

vbtemp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although the article never used the word "super star", it's something I see around HN and the startup world quite a bit.... I sort of snicker when I see startups post jobs looking for "rock star" coders [1]. What self respecting person would call him or herself a "rock star", let alone apply for such a position? Maybe it's just a gimmick to get mediocre developers to get to work on boilerplate web work.. [1] I also s…

The term "rock star programmer" is by now a symbol that people intuitively understand the meaning of. Essentially equivalent to the "creme de la creme" of programmers, but if we switched to using that term few would balk at the comparison to dairy production. I've described support staff coworkers as "total rock stars" before. Everybody gets what I mean when I say that.

So it's hilarious when companies like Geico or whatever post ads on Stack Overflow Careers 2.0 saying they only accept "rock stars"... Because we all know that's where all the hot shots flock to...

Re: Super-star programmers

#79

Post by rndmize » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:48 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…

Given that the idea of the 10x programmer seems to be considered bunk by most of HN (as per the above post), I'm curious about the idea of a Free Electron described here: http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2005/03/20/free_electr... . Would this just be another name for the same idea, or something separate that's more realistic?

Re: Super-star programmers

#80

Post by gruseom » Fri, Jun 15, 2012, 10:52 PM UTC

RivieraKid wrote: post #59

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…

Hey, you're exactly right. Most articles have really terrible information density and this is one of them. For example Paul Graham's essays are often very insightful, but they are frustratingly long. The core idea, which is the only reason why I am reading the essay, can be summarized into 1 - 3 sentences. The rest is just a boring extrapolation and repetition of that.

Paul Graham's essays are often very insightful, but they are frustratingly long.

First time PG has been denounced for verbosity?