I have found SHDH to be the consistently least arrogant gathering of technical people I partake in.
Arrogance (in my experience) tends to come from a small myopic subgroup where outside ideas are shunned. SHDH is far too big and has far too many people who like different things to have much of a cohesive snob element.
Nothing in common except that we're all people who hack in our spare time, and he does seem to take some time describing that this worldview is alien to him and that he doesn't enjoy being a software engineer...
Guy who doesn't like programming doesn't like events for people who are passionate about programming.
The largest tags on this blog are "PS3" and "Xbox 360". To the question, "Why would you get together and write code, when you could do anything else?" I would ask, "Why would you sit around and play video games when you could do something meaningful and lasting?"
No, and I'm not trying to judge his interests. I'm just pointing out that I'd be equally frustrated by a night with people he'd be hanging out with if that did accurately reflect anything.
TL;DR The fact that other people find programming to be fun angers and upsets me. Additionally, I feel inferior when talking to them, therefore they should stop having fun.
I actually had the impression this is a pretty accurate tl;dr. The 'feeling inferior' part is maybe a bit exaggerated, but he definitely doesn't understand why people would enjoy getting together on a weekend for a social hacking session.
I don't much like the post, but a charitable partial reading would be something like: I feel left out of / alienated by hacker culture because, although I'm a programmer by trade, their culture isn't really my culture. It wasn't phrased like that, but it is a fairly common sentiment in a lot of fields.
I even have it somewhat in mine, though it's more of there being multiple cultures and me being part of a less-dominant one: I research AI in videogames, but am not really part of "gamer culture", though I do play and study games extensively. I just tend to prefer playing and analyzing more simulation / indie / art types of games, and historically important games, and don't really keep up on recent AAA titles or feel part of the Penny Arcade / Kotaku culture. Sometimes that leads to awkwardness if people expect that everyone who studies videogames is "a gamer" in that cultural sense, so I could see a way that there could be programmers, even good ones, alienated by hacker culture if they feel it's assumed they'd be part of it, but they aren't.
I knew people like this. I worked in a database consultancy full of them. They eventually drove me out, because I couldn't connect to them on any level. They had no excitement for computers, or technology, or anything they did. They had a job, and they did that job (usually poorly, but the two boss guys were legitimately good at what they did, so were able to set out the database schemas and such so nothing got too fubar'd later on). They're the sort of people who say "a job's a job" and can sit at a desk from 9-5 doing pretty much anything as long as a pay check arrives.
What surprised me about people like this is that I always ascribed the ability to do a job in that manner as something that required a lower intelligence quotient: you had to be OK when presented with broken processes, manual tasks that are easily automated, and have little real pride in the product you produce. I thought this sort of stuff would drive reasonably smart people mad. But here they were, reasonably smart people, who just didn't care. They were all a product of CS when it was the "money" degree, like BioChem is now. The smart choice they made was "If I don't give a shit about any job I could possibly do, I may as well be paid decently for it." The author even says "I also have no idea what job I'd do otherwise," even though he clearly dislikes what he's doing.
The author is alienated because he doesn't give a shit, and he's found himself in a position where that isn't status quo. A lot of the posts here are surprised he's got this far; which I think shows HN's fairly biased population. There are loads of programmers who don't care. They aren't working in the Valley at companies you respect, because to be talented enough here requires passion (he seems to indicate he's in the Valley, but that doesn't mean he's at a company you respect ;) ) But someone, somewhere is coding crap bespoke software, and all those CS grads that aren't in the Valley are getting hired by someone. It's easy to forget all these people when you live in hacker communities like the Bay Area, Portland, NYC etc.
The author was fine with the idea of a social event for software engineers. Until he read more about it.
But then I kept reading the article, and it became more disturbing. A tech journalist wrote about it like this: "That’s what we want to do for others- we want to enable them to come together for a common purpose to help humanity. We see different parts of technology as different elements that come together to create a key that will unlock a door that will change the world." Wait, what? It’s a one-day event. How are you going to change the world in one day? If they could really do that, then imagine what they could do in a year. This sounds like someone with delusions of grandeur. Or a cult.
The name of the event, "SuperHappyDevHouse", is annoying, too.
It looks like my takeaway, but that could be because the article was too long and I didn't read past the second paragraph. Maybe it gets better?
I was too annoyed to continue. Software development is a craft. That doesn't mean you can't punch a clock, go for it. There are commodity photographers who punch clocks, doesn't make them justified for getting annoyed at ones who are more passionate about photography than they are.
There's room for craftspeople at every level of the scale, frankly... and there are plenty of shops that applaud the sort of attitude the author seems to have about software development.
You're right. I read it, sorry. Still don't like it. The whole thing is obnoxious, and sadly ironic. It reads like "I don't like how you guys make me feel like I ought to be more like you, so you ought to be more like me".
Nobody is shoving anything in anybodies face on this.
Also this is an interesting quote:
What is it about computer science and software engineering that causes people to become obsessive, arrogant, elitist people?
I think we've got the cause and effect reversed here. A better question is what would make obsessive, egomaniacs (those other terms are a bit ugly) want to write software. To that question I'd answer Are you kidding? We play God in a little box all day and organize intangibles for a living! You couldn't design a better career for those attributes.
Better question posed to the author: Why did you decide to do this? Cause it sounds like you've got accountant-envy.
He doesn't seem to be able to get past the fact that it's not the act of typing in code that's the fun part, it's the acts of creating and discovery, and the hours or days of trying to solve a challenging problem or find an elusive bug, followed by the elation of finally figuring it out.
I'm going to make a completely wild assumption, but the fact that he calls himself a "software engineer" and not a "programmer" or a "developer" kind of implies that he works at the kind of place where programming is boring drudgery.
This is a response to a bunch of the TL;DRs I've seen.
He doesn't resent the people he mentions in the article because they're happy or having fun. He points at specific behaviors and elements of the culture that he doesn't like and gives examples. The fact that so many have a knee-jerk reaction to this article, rather than a thoughtful one, serves his argument. At some points in the article he does come off petulant and young. He probably is young. But in other places he has good observations about some distasteful peculiarities of the culture. For example, he brings up the delusions-of-grandeur-like advertising for an event called, "SuperHappyDevHouse." The state of the culture is not a frivolous issue. A lot of smart people can be pushed away from CS if the culture isn't right.
A tech journalist wrote about it like this: "That’s what we want to do for others- we want to enable them to come together for a common purpose to help humanity. We see different parts of technology as different elements that come together to create a key that will unlock a door that will change the world."
The tech journalist was surely not writing a humor piece.
This is how I read it. The author clearly doesn't find anything enjoyable or redeeming about the career path he has chosen. Instead of switching careers to something more amenable to his personality, he chooses instead to bitch about those of us who enjoy what we do.
... and it became more disturbing. A tech journalist wrote about it like this:
“That’s what we want to do for others- we want to enable them
to come together for a common purpose to help humanity. We see different parts
of technology as different elements that come together to create a key
that will unlock a door that will change the world.”
I cannot even begin to understand the mindset that would make someone find that quote disturbing. Marketing-speak perhaps, sure. What's wrong with changing the world?
I can't say if this is the case here, but I have found this type of reaction common among others: I think it is the same fear people have when they hear of new advances in biology. It is fear of the unknown, magnified by increasingly powerful tools.
Nothing is wrong with wanting to change the world. But you don't find the language being used rather creepy? It really does sound like delusions of grandeur. For a one-day event? There is nothing wrong with wanting to change the world, but there is something wrong with hubris, ego, megalomania...
Except that when you're working in a technology field, everything you do changes the world. It may not have a sweeping impact, and may only make a small and seemingly superficial change. But that small change makes it that much easier on the next person.
Who knows - perhaps that one day event is where hacker X meets hacker Y and they go on to form company Z, and really do change the world by introducing product Δ.
Though I certainly understand where you're coming from, and how one could read the SuperHappyDevHouse blurb as being extremely egotistical.
Delusions of grandeur, perhaps, but I don't see a problem with setting high goals for SHDH. At the events I've gone to, I've seen people doing all sorts of crazy shit - at one of them, someone was doing some sort of biotech experiments with DNA and yogurt, and at another event, I saw an early version of that Word Lens realtime translation app that came out on iOS a couple months back. I think genetic engineering and realtime translation both have the potential to change the world, don't you?
Ah, well first off I thought this event was just something these guys from his job organized, like, at one of their houses.
But still. Even for a large event like that, the language he quoted in the article was kinda creepy. I of course agree that at any time ideas can spark and work can begin that will eventually have a large impact. I'm sure there are CS conferences that use more sober language.
Last I checked, software development kinda sorta is really changing the world.
Now, if they claimed they were trying to take over the world, that would be hubris. But changing the world? A noble goal if you ask me. Not creepy at all.
At first I was stunned. It had never occurred to me that there were people that didn't like the cultural aspect of hacking/programming. But to be honest, after a couple of minutes of trying to look at this with some perspective, I can imagine what this guy feels. It has happened to me when I regard other cultures, cinematographers for instance. I've always felt they are way too much into something that I regard as a simple thing. I usually feel they're trying to outsmart me by saying "Oh, you didn't get the reference? I just saw it coming!"
While I find this guy's attitude a little sad, in reality, he's just part of the spectrum/bell curve of programmers. Some people love programming, enjoy doing it, and think how amazing and fun it is to create something AND get paid for it, too? Wow! Some people program as a job, and that's it. Despite what the author suggests, some accountants love numbers enough to play with the statistics after work hours, and good for them.
Programming can change the world, and starting a project over a weekend can be the first step. Can't really change the world, even a little bit, if you don't try.
So, yeah, this guy shouldn't go to SHDH. Doesn't mean we don't invite him. So, he doesn't get it. Maybe the girl he brings with him will.
It doesn't matter what field you're in, if you're a douche, you're a douche. I agree that snobbery among engineering professionals tends to seep into aspects of life related to their careers more often than it does for other professions (which is something I don't yet have an explanation for), but I think this is just a case of skewed samples.
What a... strange set of complaints. It's one of those things that is so fascinating to read because I can't understand what he doesn't understand.
I get the part about arrogance and looking down on people with less knowledge or skill. There's a certain "macho" aspect to the culture that does bother me.
But I'm baffled by his confusion that people enjoy doing this outside their job. Granted, the passion to create and the enjoyment derived from it isn't shared by everyone, but it's not THAT uncommon - no one bats an eye at artists practicing their craft "in their spare time", or people who enjoy tinkering or building random stuff around the house - again, "in their spare time". It's a craft, and many people who pick up a craft because they enjoy doing it... enjoy doing it.
Exactly. He compared it to accounting. This is the most common fallacy I come across day to day. People just don't understand that programming is a creative sport. Not mathematically dry as this blogger percieves. Instead of accountants discussing form 4686, programmers gathering would be more like artists gathering to discuss ideas and make art together over a weekend.
People really need to start seeing programming as a creative thing. But then he's just a software engineer.
> What a... strange set of complaints. It's one of those things that is so fascinating to read because I can't understand what he doesn't understand.
Absolutely spot on. I wondered for a moment halfway whether it was meant to be satire.
The author mentions:
> I would be in lab, trying to complete whatever assignment I was doing, and there would be a bunch of CS majors around, making jokes about programming, talking about esoteric CS topics that I didn’t understand, and just being obnoxious in general.
I might have just been very lucky, but I thoroughly enjoyed joking about computer science and discussing perhaps esoteric CS topics when my peers were generally hanging out doing assignments. These discussions really helped me learn more about CS beyond the rigid confines of the course and sometimes discussing these small tips and hacks are incredibly useful later on in life during job interviews.
I agree, there's certainly nothing wrong with practicing your craft during your free time, especially if you enjoy it. But I appreciate the author's total candor. I find the mainstream "geek" culture unpalatable, myself. Of course that's not the same thing as hacker culture, or CS culture.
I can definitely understand how he doesn't like jerk hackers. These aren't mutually exclusive though. I know plenty of people that learn something cool (or are working on something cool) and want to show it off (these people are great). A lot of the people that are jerks have weird self confidence issues and tend to want to elevate themselves by looking down on others.
So there's this math party and everyone came out to have a good time, tangent is dancing with cosine, sine is having drinks and so on. Everyone is happy except for the exponential function which is sitting in a corner all by itself. Finally sine walks over and says "Hey e, why aren't you having fun with all of us?" ... says the e-function: "Because I can't integrate myself!"
i think what distinguishes programming from say, accounting, is that it is a creative field. you'll probably find a culture surrounding all creative professions (cesarsalazar12 mentioned cinematographers as an example).
hmmm, on the other hand (and sadly) in an employment context most programming is probably more akin to uncreative accounting. gluing apis together etc.
it just has the potential to be creative (universally creative? *church-turing hypothesis), and this is what most programmers yearn for.
So wait... I know plenty of carpenters who go home and make cabinets.
I know a welder who makes cool stuff like grills and roasters in his spare time for fun.
Plenty of photographers don't even pretend there is a difference between work and play.
Same for musicians.
Mathematicians don't make math jokes all the time, but the annoyingly approach everything as if it was a math problem (insert spherical cow joke here).
On the other side: this guy has had the luckiest interactions with the bureaucrats ever. I seem to always get met with derision and snide comments for asking things like "how do i turn this in?" or "this vaguely labeled field doesn't make sense, what do you want here" and so on.
I've heard accountants throw around jargon as bad or worse than programmers, particularly during tax season.
Lawyers love lawyer jokes and lawyer culture.
So what the hell is this guy's problem? Why doesn't he just quit and do something he likes instead of whine about it like a petulant child?
So what the hell is this guy's problem? Why doesn't he just quit and do something he likes instead of whine about it like a petulant child?
The post author never said he didn't like programming, but rather that he only does it during work hours. To respond that he should just quit and call him a petulant child for expressing discontent with negative personalities is the part that seems to prove his point.
it seems the post is down now so i can't be sure and i can't quote it directly, but as i recall the author actually implies several times he doesn't enjoy programming. the also article ends with a statement about how he stays because it pays well.
edit: perhaps the confusion is that i can't see how you can enjoy something while judging others for pursuing it recreationally.
edit 2: "It’s probably unclear from my previous posts, but I’m a software engineer. I guess I don’t really talk about it much, since I don’t really like it that much."
if you want to be semantic yes, he isn't speaking of programming directly. but i cannot imagine someone who enjoys programming saying this. likewise, i don't see anything in the post that would lead me to believe he enjoys it.
That seems to be the impression that HN readers are getting, but I've reviewed it a few times and I don't see anywhere that he has stated that he dislikes or does not enjoy programming.
To address your edit, I think it's purely inference to conclude that he either likes or does not like programming itself.
He states that he does it because the money is good, and because he can't do anything else.
He can't believe there are people who program on the weekends, for fun.
He can't be bothered to learn anything new, or to even hear about concepts he doesn't understand.
He posts all the above on a public (until recently) blog, where his boss and all his coworkers can read it. What more do you need? If he has any interest in programming, he's doing a good job of covering it up with his endless complaints.
Sounds like he doesn't enjoy cocky, arrogant behavior. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Maybe his personality is orthogonal to that which he surrounds himself by...
I think this issue has more to do with personality than "culture".
You seem to be confusing passion with talent / ability / skill. Perhaps he's very very good at it... It's the thing he is best at. Should he not do something he is great, for the sake of argument, at just because he doesn't have passion for it?
He's definitely hurting both himself and the people he works with, both from the fact that he's not likely to work to improve himself, and from his depression/frustration and the fact that it's manifesting as resentment towards his coworkers. I don't mean to attack him, it's just that in collaborative work that requires skill (read: practice), a bad team member can be worse than having one too few. If it really is what he's best at, then he really needs to start practicing something he actually does enjoy, or find some way to enjoy it enough to practice.
To an extent you must be "cocky" to be great at...anything.
Who is going to trust an engineer who questions his ability?
Plus, people think about their job when they go home because
they truly love their job, this guy seems to have had a
negative outlook on it from the very beginning.
I don't think the author would mind carpenters getting together to work on their craft, or working on their craft privately. He says in the article that the basic idea of programmers getting together sounded good to him. Rather, he would be put off by carpenters getting together at an event called "SuperHappyCarpentryHouse", with the stated goal of "creating a key to unlock a door to a better world for humanity." What he doesn't like are the peculiarities and the strength of the culture. (The culture of these particular folks he works with.)
I dunno, but it seems to be his main issue is what might amount to bragging and boasting which he appears to have encountered in his dealings.
It seems to be, to a degree, a protest against conformity to a programming culture he's encountered. He wants to live his programming life as he sees fit, not so much as others seem to assume he would align with?
If he wants to alienate himself from his peers and colleagues, that's fine. But that's a pretty self-defeating position to take, is it not? What, is programming culture going to change because this guy has a problem with it?
He should be the change he wishes to see, etc. etc. instead of just bitching like an angsty teenager.
So many people have posted comments that suggest they didn't read the whole article. Towards the end of the article the author explains that many of his peers do not participate in the particular form of the culture that he finds so distasteful.
I read the whole article, and he didn't say "peers," he said "friends." And he didn't explain anything beyond that.
People do not passively participate in a culture. We collectively create a culture by forming relationships with everyone around us, not just our friends. You have to get along with your coworkers if you want to succeed in any field, and if you are a software engineer, that's probably going to involve geeking out about programming.
He was definitely talking about other people at his job, or at least in his profession. He was explaining why he didn't leave the profession. I would quote the article but it's down.
What I really don't understand is how someone like this even get's hired as a developer. I'm assuming he either writes in-house software for a non-tech company or is just another dud at Micro$.
It's also perplexing that he is either 1) completely unaware that people who are passionate about their work take it home with them (think artists, musicians, carpenters, mechanical engineers, etc.), or 2) has decided to completely ignore this concept for the sake of this post.
Looking at the rest of the blog makes me wonder, why does he think that it's cool to be passionate about cakes or alcoholic drinks but not cool to be passionate about technology?
it sounds like the author has surrounded themselves with people who are more passionate about programming than himself. and he's annoyed by it. fair enough. stick with it i guess, at least it "pays quite well".
My situation is the opposite of his. I'd love to be surrounded by people that are passionate about programming. But I work at a company where software is not the primary focus, so quite some of my colleagues are like him.
I think this guys complaints are somewhat valid... I've maybe echoed something similar myself? Though, I think my primary complaint is that lots of coders seem to think people who don't want to work on some OSS project / side project during their free time can't be exceptional coders... This is the attitude I find fairly pervasive(especially on HN) and personally objectionable.
That observation does not validate, "coders seem to think people who don't want to work on some OSS project / side project during their free time can't be exceptional coders."
> Though, I think my primary complaint is that lots of coders seem to think people who don't want to work on some OSS project / side project during their free time can't be exceptional coders... This is the attitude I find fairly pervasive(especially on HN) and personally objectionable.
I understand that you find that belief "objectionable" and "pervasive". Have you considered the possibility that it might be correct? Because you have failed to present any arguments against it.
There's a pretty strong empirical argument for it, just from the observed populations, but there are also theoretical reasons to believe it:
• People who only program at work, and on closed-source projects, only ever get feedback on their programming within the context of work, from the other people who work at the same company, probably on the same project. Most projects and many companies are staffed entirely with bad programmers, so it's very likely that you'll never get a good programmer to look at your code that way, so you'll never get mentorship; you'll have to learn everything about programming by trial and error, which would take many lifetimes. At many companies, it's even worse than that — there's no code review.
• People who practice a skill 80 hours a week improve much faster than people who only practice it 40 hours a week. Many people don't even have the opportunity to program for anything close to 40 hours a week at work.
• People who practice something because they must, rather than because they love it, will never improve beyond the minimal level of competency demanded of them, because that takes further effort.
Now, there's a limit to how much you can productively practice a skill, and maybe you have a job where Rob Pike vets your checkins and that will suck up as much effort as you can manage to throw at it. But there was probably a time when you didn't, and there'll probably be another time when you don't.
1: This isn't really a relevant point. If all of the other people in their office are amazing programmers then maybe they are getting fabulous feedback. My complaint really doesn't address this and it's an entirely unknown since you don't have any information about anyone's particular work environment. That said, I'll agree that at a place without code reviews you don't even have a shot at getting good feedback.
2. Now this is definitely a valid complaint. That said I wonder how many different technologies people who work on some side projects work with on average in a month. Perhaps this problem is balanced by the folks who only program at work having more depth in their chosen technology but less breadth overall. Again, valid complaint... but it's likely more complicated than you've made it out to be.
3. This is just not true... People have all sorts of reasons they choose to master a particular skill. You make it sound as if someone can't put their heart into learning their trade simply because they have a belief that it's their job to perform at their very best and not just at a "minimally competent" level.
Maybe the opinion exists because it is true.. but your bullet points don't provide compelling arguments and they reek of the same elitism I was originally talking about.
With regard to #1, your chances of working your way up to getting code review comments from Linus Torvalds or Rob Pike is a lot better if you're contributing to (other people's!) open-source projects than in almost any non-OSS work environment.
I don't think people have this attitude because of these theoretical reasons, though. I think they believe it for empirical reasons — because they don't know any first-class programmers who only code at work and don't work on open-source software. Do you? I was just trying to explain the evidence I've observed, not trying to convince you from first principles.
But, doesn't it follow that you wouldn't know of these great programmers precisely because of the fact that they only code at work. You wouldn't have visibility of them unless you worked with them... and I suspect that for most of us the number of other programmers we work directly with over our careers is somewhere around 100 - 200 (Just a guess based on how many I work with directly and how many times I'm likely to change employers)... That's a very small slice of all of the programmers...
Though it occurs to me that participating in OSS would allow you to work with far more developers than you would otherwise.Though I'd argue that it isn't really as direct contact as the workplace.
Also, in retrospect I targeted "OSS" a lot but what I'm really talking about is any side project that isn't your day job. I don't want anyone to get the idea I'm attack OSS.
The sort of culture thing only really becomes a problem when managers start basing their hiring on it. I know plenty of amazing programmers who never program in their spare time and don't have any popular open source projects and it would be unfortunate for a manager to pass up such a candidate just because they do not take part in the 'culture'. Other then that I can not think of any logical beef one could really have with the programming culture (though the jokes are a bit much sometimes).
He's a professional who has forgotten -- or maybe never knew -- what it means to be an amateur. To do it for the love of the thing.
He's exchanging units of time for units of currency; it's no wonder he doesn't understand why people get excited about building things. It's no wonder he doesn't understand the immense value generated by creating something new or solving problems that are difficult.
It's also unsurprising that he thinks one person typing into a terminal can't change the world.
"Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune." -Rohn
The difference between this guy and most hackers is that hackers see programming as a method of building stuff. I'm pretty sure his day job must involve "engineering" in the sense of connecting code and applying best practices, but not to think and create products. There's no pride and no ownership in that.
Of course accountants don't gather to bang some numbers, there's nothing to create there. People get together for fun to shoot a film, build a house, or have a stimulating conversation.
This guy is really ranting about people who aren't well rounded, rather than people who like programming a lot. I've seen the same thing in physics, math, and even philosophy and music people I've hung out with.
So, I agree, people who aren't well rounded can be boring, and I don't understand them, and I usually have trouble relating to them as people or friends.
Anyway, so a triple integral and a sorting algorithm walk into a bar. The triple integral says "Bartender, what have you got that's a sure-fire cure for loneliness?". The bartender says ...
136 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 241 ms ] threadArrogance (in my experience) tends to come from a small myopic subgroup where outside ideas are shunned. SHDH is far too big and has far too many people who like different things to have much of a cohesive snob element.
Nothing in common except that we're all people who hack in our spare time, and he does seem to take some time describing that this worldview is alien to him and that he doesn't enjoy being a software engineer...
The largest tags on this blog are "PS3" and "Xbox 360". To the question, "Why would you get together and write code, when you could do anything else?" I would ask, "Why would you sit around and play video games when you could do something meaningful and lasting?"
We all have different interests.
I even have it somewhat in mine, though it's more of there being multiple cultures and me being part of a less-dominant one: I research AI in videogames, but am not really part of "gamer culture", though I do play and study games extensively. I just tend to prefer playing and analyzing more simulation / indie / art types of games, and historically important games, and don't really keep up on recent AAA titles or feel part of the Penny Arcade / Kotaku culture. Sometimes that leads to awkwardness if people expect that everyone who studies videogames is "a gamer" in that cultural sense, so I could see a way that there could be programmers, even good ones, alienated by hacker culture if they feel it's assumed they'd be part of it, but they aren't.
I knew people like this. I worked in a database consultancy full of them. They eventually drove me out, because I couldn't connect to them on any level. They had no excitement for computers, or technology, or anything they did. They had a job, and they did that job (usually poorly, but the two boss guys were legitimately good at what they did, so were able to set out the database schemas and such so nothing got too fubar'd later on). They're the sort of people who say "a job's a job" and can sit at a desk from 9-5 doing pretty much anything as long as a pay check arrives.
What surprised me about people like this is that I always ascribed the ability to do a job in that manner as something that required a lower intelligence quotient: you had to be OK when presented with broken processes, manual tasks that are easily automated, and have little real pride in the product you produce. I thought this sort of stuff would drive reasonably smart people mad. But here they were, reasonably smart people, who just didn't care. They were all a product of CS when it was the "money" degree, like BioChem is now. The smart choice they made was "If I don't give a shit about any job I could possibly do, I may as well be paid decently for it." The author even says "I also have no idea what job I'd do otherwise," even though he clearly dislikes what he's doing.
The author is alienated because he doesn't give a shit, and he's found himself in a position where that isn't status quo. A lot of the posts here are surprised he's got this far; which I think shows HN's fairly biased population. There are loads of programmers who don't care. They aren't working in the Valley at companies you respect, because to be talented enough here requires passion (he seems to indicate he's in the Valley, but that doesn't mean he's at a company you respect ;) ) But someone, somewhere is coding crap bespoke software, and all those CS grads that aren't in the Valley are getting hired by someone. It's easy to forget all these people when you live in hacker communities like the Bay Area, Portland, NYC etc.
But then I kept reading the article, and it became more disturbing. A tech journalist wrote about it like this: "That’s what we want to do for others- we want to enable them to come together for a common purpose to help humanity. We see different parts of technology as different elements that come together to create a key that will unlock a door that will change the world." Wait, what? It’s a one-day event. How are you going to change the world in one day? If they could really do that, then imagine what they could do in a year. This sounds like someone with delusions of grandeur. Or a cult.
The name of the event, "SuperHappyDevHouse", is annoying, too.
I was too annoyed to continue. Software development is a craft. That doesn't mean you can't punch a clock, go for it. There are commodity photographers who punch clocks, doesn't make them justified for getting annoyed at ones who are more passionate about photography than they are.
There's room for craftspeople at every level of the scale, frankly... and there are plenty of shops that applaud the sort of attitude the author seems to have about software development.
The entire post is less than 900 words. Might it be better to reserve judgment until you read the article?
Nobody is shoving anything in anybodies face on this.
Also this is an interesting quote:
What is it about computer science and software engineering that causes people to become obsessive, arrogant, elitist people?
I think we've got the cause and effect reversed here. A better question is what would make obsessive, egomaniacs (those other terms are a bit ugly) want to write software. To that question I'd answer Are you kidding? We play God in a little box all day and organize intangibles for a living! You couldn't design a better career for those attributes.
Better question posed to the author: Why did you decide to do this? Cause it sounds like you've got accountant-envy.
He doesn't seem to be able to get past the fact that it's not the act of typing in code that's the fun part, it's the acts of creating and discovery, and the hours or days of trying to solve a challenging problem or find an elusive bug, followed by the elation of finally figuring it out.
I'm going to make a completely wild assumption, but the fact that he calls himself a "software engineer" and not a "programmer" or a "developer" kind of implies that he works at the kind of place where programming is boring drudgery.
He doesn't resent the people he mentions in the article because they're happy or having fun. He points at specific behaviors and elements of the culture that he doesn't like and gives examples. The fact that so many have a knee-jerk reaction to this article, rather than a thoughtful one, serves his argument. At some points in the article he does come off petulant and young. He probably is young. But in other places he has good observations about some distasteful peculiarities of the culture. For example, he brings up the delusions-of-grandeur-like advertising for an event called, "SuperHappyDevHouse." The state of the culture is not a frivolous issue. A lot of smart people can be pushed away from CS if the culture isn't right.
The tech journalist was surely not writing a humor piece.
TL;DR: I don't actually like computer science, but I'm in it and can barely tolerate it. I resent people who are happy doing it.
I can't say if this is the case here, but I have found this type of reaction common among others: I think it is the same fear people have when they hear of new advances in biology. It is fear of the unknown, magnified by increasingly powerful tools.
Who knows - perhaps that one day event is where hacker X meets hacker Y and they go on to form company Z, and really do change the world by introducing product Δ.
Though I certainly understand where you're coming from, and how one could read the SuperHappyDevHouse blurb as being extremely egotistical.
But still. Even for a large event like that, the language he quoted in the article was kinda creepy. I of course agree that at any time ideas can spark and work can begin that will eventually have a large impact. I'm sure there are CS conferences that use more sober language.
Now, if they claimed they were trying to take over the world, that would be hubris. But changing the world? A noble goal if you ask me. Not creepy at all.
Most folks know something about something and are just looking for a chance to explain their passion to somebody who acts like they might care.
Programming can change the world, and starting a project over a weekend can be the first step. Can't really change the world, even a little bit, if you don't try.
So, yeah, this guy shouldn't go to SHDH. Doesn't mean we don't invite him. So, he doesn't get it. Maybe the girl he brings with him will.
I get the part about arrogance and looking down on people with less knowledge or skill. There's a certain "macho" aspect to the culture that does bother me.
But I'm baffled by his confusion that people enjoy doing this outside their job. Granted, the passion to create and the enjoyment derived from it isn't shared by everyone, but it's not THAT uncommon - no one bats an eye at artists practicing their craft "in their spare time", or people who enjoy tinkering or building random stuff around the house - again, "in their spare time". It's a craft, and many people who pick up a craft because they enjoy doing it... enjoy doing it.
People really need to start seeing programming as a creative thing. But then he's just a software engineer.
Absolutely spot on. I wondered for a moment halfway whether it was meant to be satire.
The author mentions:
> I would be in lab, trying to complete whatever assignment I was doing, and there would be a bunch of CS majors around, making jokes about programming, talking about esoteric CS topics that I didn’t understand, and just being obnoxious in general.
I might have just been very lucky, but I thoroughly enjoyed joking about computer science and discussing perhaps esoteric CS topics when my peers were generally hanging out doing assignments. These discussions really helped me learn more about CS beyond the rigid confines of the course and sometimes discussing these small tips and hacks are incredibly useful later on in life during job interviews.
Ha! q.e.d.
(You can integrate e^x, but you end up with e^x.)
hmmm, on the other hand (and sadly) in an employment context most programming is probably more akin to uncreative accounting. gluing apis together etc.
it just has the potential to be creative (universally creative? *church-turing hypothesis), and this is what most programmers yearn for.
I know a welder who makes cool stuff like grills and roasters in his spare time for fun.
Plenty of photographers don't even pretend there is a difference between work and play.
Same for musicians.
Mathematicians don't make math jokes all the time, but the annoyingly approach everything as if it was a math problem (insert spherical cow joke here).
On the other side: this guy has had the luckiest interactions with the bureaucrats ever. I seem to always get met with derision and snide comments for asking things like "how do i turn this in?" or "this vaguely labeled field doesn't make sense, what do you want here" and so on.
I've heard accountants throw around jargon as bad or worse than programmers, particularly during tax season.
Lawyers love lawyer jokes and lawyer culture.
So what the hell is this guy's problem? Why doesn't he just quit and do something he likes instead of whine about it like a petulant child?
The post author never said he didn't like programming, but rather that he only does it during work hours. To respond that he should just quit and call him a petulant child for expressing discontent with negative personalities is the part that seems to prove his point.
edit: perhaps the confusion is that i can't see how you can enjoy something while judging others for pursuing it recreationally.
edit 2: "It’s probably unclear from my previous posts, but I’m a software engineer. I guess I don’t really talk about it much, since I don’t really like it that much."
if you want to be semantic yes, he isn't speaking of programming directly. but i cannot imagine someone who enjoys programming saying this. likewise, i don't see anything in the post that would lead me to believe he enjoys it.
To address your edit, I think it's purely inference to conclude that he either likes or does not like programming itself.
He can't believe there are people who program on the weekends, for fun.
He can't be bothered to learn anything new, or to even hear about concepts he doesn't understand.
He posts all the above on a public (until recently) blog, where his boss and all his coworkers can read it. What more do you need? If he has any interest in programming, he's doing a good job of covering it up with his endless complaints.
An actual statement from him, of course.
I think this issue has more to do with personality than "culture".
It seems to be, to a degree, a protest against conformity to a programming culture he's encountered. He wants to live his programming life as he sees fit, not so much as others seem to assume he would align with?
He should be the change he wishes to see, etc. etc. instead of just bitching like an angsty teenager.
People do not passively participate in a culture. We collectively create a culture by forming relationships with everyone around us, not just our friends. You have to get along with your coworkers if you want to succeed in any field, and if you are a software engineer, that's probably going to involve geeking out about programming.
It's also perplexing that he is either 1) completely unaware that people who are passionate about their work take it home with them (think artists, musicians, carpenters, mechanical engineers, etc.), or 2) has decided to completely ignore this concept for the sake of this post.
Maybe he's trolling hn.
So, you've never taken real analysis then. Good to know.
Conversely, I can think of a lot of crappy programmers who have not ever contributed to an open source project or even put together their own website.
I understand that you find that belief "objectionable" and "pervasive". Have you considered the possibility that it might be correct? Because you have failed to present any arguments against it.
There's a pretty strong empirical argument for it, just from the observed populations, but there are also theoretical reasons to believe it:
• People who only program at work, and on closed-source projects, only ever get feedback on their programming within the context of work, from the other people who work at the same company, probably on the same project. Most projects and many companies are staffed entirely with bad programmers, so it's very likely that you'll never get a good programmer to look at your code that way, so you'll never get mentorship; you'll have to learn everything about programming by trial and error, which would take many lifetimes. At many companies, it's even worse than that — there's no code review.
• People who practice a skill 80 hours a week improve much faster than people who only practice it 40 hours a week. Many people don't even have the opportunity to program for anything close to 40 hours a week at work.
• People who practice something because they must, rather than because they love it, will never improve beyond the minimal level of competency demanded of them, because that takes further effort.
Now, there's a limit to how much you can productively practice a skill, and maybe you have a job where Rob Pike vets your checkins and that will suck up as much effort as you can manage to throw at it. But there was probably a time when you didn't, and there'll probably be another time when you don't.
1: This isn't really a relevant point. If all of the other people in their office are amazing programmers then maybe they are getting fabulous feedback. My complaint really doesn't address this and it's an entirely unknown since you don't have any information about anyone's particular work environment. That said, I'll agree that at a place without code reviews you don't even have a shot at getting good feedback.
2. Now this is definitely a valid complaint. That said I wonder how many different technologies people who work on some side projects work with on average in a month. Perhaps this problem is balanced by the folks who only program at work having more depth in their chosen technology but less breadth overall. Again, valid complaint... but it's likely more complicated than you've made it out to be.
3. This is just not true... People have all sorts of reasons they choose to master a particular skill. You make it sound as if someone can't put their heart into learning their trade simply because they have a belief that it's their job to perform at their very best and not just at a "minimally competent" level.
Maybe the opinion exists because it is true.. but your bullet points don't provide compelling arguments and they reek of the same elitism I was originally talking about.
With regard to #1, your chances of working your way up to getting code review comments from Linus Torvalds or Rob Pike is a lot better if you're contributing to (other people's!) open-source projects than in almost any non-OSS work environment.
I don't think people have this attitude because of these theoretical reasons, though. I think they believe it for empirical reasons — because they don't know any first-class programmers who only code at work and don't work on open-source software. Do you? I was just trying to explain the evidence I've observed, not trying to convince you from first principles.
Though it occurs to me that participating in OSS would allow you to work with far more developers than you would otherwise.Though I'd argue that it isn't really as direct contact as the workplace.
He's exchanging units of time for units of currency; it's no wonder he doesn't understand why people get excited about building things. It's no wonder he doesn't understand the immense value generated by creating something new or solving problems that are difficult.
It's also unsurprising that he thinks one person typing into a terminal can't change the world.
"Formal education will make you a living; self-education will make you a fortune." -Rohn
Of course accountants don't gather to bang some numbers, there's nothing to create there. People get together for fun to shoot a film, build a house, or have a stimulating conversation.
So, I agree, people who aren't well rounded can be boring, and I don't understand them, and I usually have trouble relating to them as people or friends.
Anyway, so a triple integral and a sorting algorithm walk into a bar. The triple integral says "Bartender, what have you got that's a sure-fire cure for loneliness?". The bartender says ...
(contrived, I know...)