January 28, 2013 at 16:57About incorrect generalizations, or every programmer is unique
I read the post "Your programmer and your wife ...." , and as a programmer and manager, I want to disagree with the author. Despite the fact that I consider his experience in the organization of development quite interesting.
First of all, I want to note that, in my opinion, the manager himself is to blame for management errors, which also result in the care of a person, in most cases.
Further, summarizing unique specialists is like trying to talk about musicians, for example, in general. Musicians are supposedly a strange people, and these are especially born after the 70s. But the fact that a kabatsky singer, orchestra soloist or an outstanding opera singer - these are three completely different musicians and thousands of different people, is somehow not taken as an example.
But move on.
The author draws a conclusion, as far as he understood (didn’t he read it?) Very simple - it is desirable to have ideal people who fit his definition.
Perhaps this is due to a general misunderstanding by people who are not programmers of the essence of the work and the typical life motives of programmers.
I remember my favorite picture in the subject.
My opinion is simple - programming is a gift, and a gift is rare. And it is given to different people. Among my colleagues and acquaintances who can program, there are fighters-champions in kyokushin, Muay Thai, opera singers, businessmen, salespeople - in general, people who are gifted in different fields, and generalizing them would be a crime.
We can only say that, along with the gift of programming, a certain character set is characteristic of a person. But here, too, one cannot speak of any objectivity, since at the moment, forgive me humanities, the mechanism of the brain is not deciphered, which means that the personality as such is not formalized. So, it’s impossible to talk about any classifications and statistical reliability in objective terms, only a subjective person. There are interesting attempts, sort of like in the book "How to graze cats", but still, each person is individual and has to work with him in a new way (although the number of methodologies is of course).
Therefore, I can say that the issue of keeping people does not lie in which people to look for. And how you have built the recruitment process and the process of training people in the company. If you, for example, have pipeline development, then maybe you do not need full-time salary programmers? And you need maximum automation, a couple of gurus on it, plus a couple of architects who would be engaged in decomposition of tasks, and the tasks themselves would be given in pieces to outsourcing, which would not fail?
I want to end by paraphrasing a famous joke. The ideal programmer does not write bad code, does not break deadlines and does not exist.
PS. And yes, the opera vocalist in the past, the developer of Marco Zanini - Nessun dorma - left the vocals for the sake of his family, and went into IT.
If you could give a kick in the ass to a person who is guilty of all your troubles, then you would not be able to sit for three days.
Unknown author
First of all, I want to note that, in my opinion, the manager himself is to blame for management errors, which also result in the care of a person, in most cases.
Further, summarizing unique specialists is like trying to talk about musicians, for example, in general. Musicians are supposedly a strange people, and these are especially born after the 70s. But the fact that a kabatsky singer, orchestra soloist or an outstanding opera singer - these are three completely different musicians and thousands of different people, is somehow not taken as an example.
But move on.
The author draws a conclusion, as far as he understood (didn’t he read it?) Very simple - it is desirable to have ideal people who fit his definition.
Perhaps this is due to a general misunderstanding by people who are not programmers of the essence of the work and the typical life motives of programmers.
I remember my favorite picture in the subject.
My opinion is simple - programming is a gift, and a gift is rare. And it is given to different people. Among my colleagues and acquaintances who can program, there are fighters-champions in kyokushin, Muay Thai, opera singers, businessmen, salespeople - in general, people who are gifted in different fields, and generalizing them would be a crime.
We can only say that, along with the gift of programming, a certain character set is characteristic of a person. But here, too, one cannot speak of any objectivity, since at the moment, forgive me humanities, the mechanism of the brain is not deciphered, which means that the personality as such is not formalized. So, it’s impossible to talk about any classifications and statistical reliability in objective terms, only a subjective person. There are interesting attempts, sort of like in the book "How to graze cats", but still, each person is individual and has to work with him in a new way (although the number of methodologies is of course).
Therefore, I can say that the issue of keeping people does not lie in which people to look for. And how you have built the recruitment process and the process of training people in the company. If you, for example, have pipeline development, then maybe you do not need full-time salary programmers? And you need maximum automation, a couple of gurus on it, plus a couple of architects who would be engaged in decomposition of tasks, and the tasks themselves would be given in pieces to outsourcing, which would not fail?
I want to end by paraphrasing a famous joke. The ideal programmer does not write bad code, does not break deadlines and does not exist.
PS. And yes, the opera vocalist in the past, the developer of Marco Zanini - Nessun dorma - left the vocals for the sake of his family, and went into IT.