The problem is the people who are in this profession just for the money are whose low quality code I have to keep rewriting at almost every job so far.
I've rewritten a shit ton of code in my life, a great deal of it written originally by developers who A) claimed to love the profession; B) thought they knew what good code looked like; C) were wrong.
And you know what else? Somebody probably came behind me and did the same thing a few times. Pretending nobody's ever cleaned up your mess is just pretentious.
Actually, I worked with Garann at Etsy, and she's great. In fact I can think of numerous occasions in which she paid down organizational technical debt.
She says this in the article:
> I made a very successful career of programming while entirely motivated by having a good paying job, and at the risk of being a braggart, I was a good programmer.
How about this: instead of flat out accusing the author of causing technical debt (essentially an ad-hominem attack), why not disagree with the substance of her argument. That is: that one does not truly need to be passionate about this industry to be both successful and good at your job, and that the assumption that one does is keeping qualified people out of our industry. That way you don't need to worry about whether or not we are great. It's truly immaterial.
To provide a bit of a counterpoint to this post, I would say that coding is a creative pursuit, and we wouldn't expect an artist or a woodworker to say they weren't in love with their craft. The only difference is that programming happens to pay better.
Yes, there are jobs for the rough carpenters of the programming world who just know how to cut and nail and follow a plan, but the best jobs are always going to go to the fine craftsmen who devote some significant chunk of their lives to the pursuit.
Most definitely. Those that are passionate about their craft will put more pride & spend more time doing it.
I also find it really helpful to maintain friendships with developers outside of the Silicon Valley/startup world who are basically programming to live (as opposed to living to program). They provide me with a counter-balance to the echo-chamber-ish view I sometimes fall into. I have colleagues who will hack out an awesome weekend project just because they love to code. And I have colleagues who are admittedly pretty good at programming, but would rather be building a house or working in their garden. They sometimes encourage me take a step back and understand the things that truly bring me joy.
> They sometimes encourage me take a step back and understand the things that truly bring me joy.
Not only that, most businesses (certainly most startups) would be far better served early on by having someone who was a good programmer but not in love with it, but was in love with the business. I'd bet on that setup vs. a brilliant engineer who doesn't understand (or want to understand) the biz every time.
>You don’t go around telling people you only code for the money while you still need a coding job, that’s suicide. You have to say you code for the challenge at minimum, or the beauty of naked logic or the unlimited power to create, if you want to really sell it. [...] I am not a sociologist, but I believe pretty firmly that this is the most fundamental thing keeping tech from being more diverse. It asks us to fundamentally change how we portray ourselves, to be programmers first and everything else merely in the last twenty characters of our twitter bio.
Two observations...
First, I'm not sure why this was submitted to HN since I presume that HN's demographic genuinely likes/loves to program and they do not wear a fake mask pretending they do. HN is the wrong audience for this message.
Second, whenever a topic about companies expressing a preference for "passionate programmers who also do it as a hobby", many forum posters will emphatically push back with "it's enough I code for 8 hours a day". What's unknown is what % of programmers worldwide express that sentiment publicly among their coworkers (and possibly managers) as opposed to keeping it a secret.
You might be overestimating the passion people here have for programming. If you're starting a company, programming is really a means to an end. Some people here are non-technical cofounders who don't code at all.
Then I'm one of the few that hate it. I have no idea how people bang out another CRUD app in the latest fad language/framework/pattern du jour. I don't get excited when someone announces a new language. I know C, I know enough python to get by, but I sure as hell can rip apart a stack down the logic level if you want me to.
What I do love to do is solve problems. Sometimes the problem is to come up with a clever algorithm, sometimes it's to fix a piece of broken software, usually it's figure out how the hell something works. In the end I despise any time that I actually have to write code.
I know that I'll never get a job because of my programming. I'll never have any wiz bang open source project to show someone. But in the end I have plenty of opportunities because I solve problems.
> People concerned with collecting a paycheck have excellent work ethics, and the industry would benefit from more of them in it.
Typically, no they do not. They may have excellent "butt in seat" metrics, but that means very little for quality of work.
> If you can fake it for interviews and in order to advance your career, you’ll definitely go further, but never feel bad about either faking it or not being able to.
If by faking it you mean a little embellishment or studying up before an interview then that's fine. But I have a good knack for catching phonies. And once I find you've been dishonest about your experience or knowledge I throw that resume out and interview is over. Be prepared, honest, and enthusiastic.
Basically with any profession you need to be motivated to excel. I wouldn't hire a medical assistant who just wanted a paycheck. I'd want someone who wants to help people, learn and grow.
It's only recently that I've found (a few) programmers who talk about the beauty of the work - I think the "get money get out" folks are the vast majority at the zillions of non-buzzworthy companies.
I smirk a little at the slightly oblivious people who put a ton of gravitas on throwaway apps, but to me it feels like down to earth people along with people working on truly exciting things greatly outnumber them.
I would think that if you pursued any job just with an attitude of "get yours and get out" where you were "entirely motivated by having a good paying job" you'd be... kind of miserable.
Sure, a girl who loves working at bakery might be struggling to make ends meet; but if she's also genuinely happy with her career then what does it matter? Work is where the average person will spend most of their time, so I just don't think it's worth it to go into a field you hate in the hope that you can retire early.
"Sure, a girl who loves working at bakery might be struggling to make ends meet; if she's also genuinely happy with her career then what does it matter?"
It matters because "struggling to make ends meet" is a lot of stress and can get in the way of a lot of things. It still might have been a better choice for her than taking an alternative path that would have exchanged that for a career she was miserable in, but it still matters.
An interesting point of comparison is with finance. Most people going into IB/private equity/etc. make no bones about the fact that they just want to make money (and "win"). Wanting to just make money is a positive trait. There are lots of people going into finance (non-quants) that have the mentality of just getting in, earning millions, then leaving the field in their thirties.
I read this as an attempt to de-mystify programming as work. You don’t have to be a stereotypical geek to enjoy it. You don’t have to dream about code in your sleep. It doesn’t take a genus to do it and it doesn’t require more passion than say dentistry.
Many are turned away from programming because of its geek allure. They think it isn’t for them because they didn’t care for Star Trek. It’s time to rectify the impression. Programming can be a pragmatic career choice, just as law or architecture or medicine can. No more, no less.
I know a computer science PhD in his early to mid 30s who wished that, if he could go back to uni would instead study industrial design, but alas he states that programming pays more and is more stable.
I mean, sure you could some other craft or industry that you don't love or god forbid dislike (banking, nursing, building homes) so that it can pay the bills and enable you to buy a house. You don't need to get into programming to do that. BUT programming enables you to live a certain lifestyle because of its unique attributes that is part and parcel of the job. The end game here is - do we live to work OR do we work to live?
25 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 72.1 ms ] threadAnd you know what else? Somebody probably came behind me and did the same thing a few times. Pretending nobody's ever cleaned up your mess is just pretentious.
She says this in the article:
> I made a very successful career of programming while entirely motivated by having a good paying job, and at the risk of being a braggart, I was a good programmer.
and she is right.
Yes, there are jobs for the rough carpenters of the programming world who just know how to cut and nail and follow a plan, but the best jobs are always going to go to the fine craftsmen who devote some significant chunk of their lives to the pursuit.
I also find it really helpful to maintain friendships with developers outside of the Silicon Valley/startup world who are basically programming to live (as opposed to living to program). They provide me with a counter-balance to the echo-chamber-ish view I sometimes fall into. I have colleagues who will hack out an awesome weekend project just because they love to code. And I have colleagues who are admittedly pretty good at programming, but would rather be building a house or working in their garden. They sometimes encourage me take a step back and understand the things that truly bring me joy.
Not only that, most businesses (certainly most startups) would be far better served early on by having someone who was a good programmer but not in love with it, but was in love with the business. I'd bet on that setup vs. a brilliant engineer who doesn't understand (or want to understand) the biz every time.
Two observations...
First, I'm not sure why this was submitted to HN since I presume that HN's demographic genuinely likes/loves to program and they do not wear a fake mask pretending they do. HN is the wrong audience for this message.
Second, whenever a topic about companies expressing a preference for "passionate programmers who also do it as a hobby", many forum posters will emphatically push back with "it's enough I code for 8 hours a day". What's unknown is what % of programmers worldwide express that sentiment publicly among their coworkers (and possibly managers) as opposed to keeping it a secret.
What I do love to do is solve problems. Sometimes the problem is to come up with a clever algorithm, sometimes it's to fix a piece of broken software, usually it's figure out how the hell something works. In the end I despise any time that I actually have to write code.
I know that I'll never get a job because of my programming. I'll never have any wiz bang open source project to show someone. But in the end I have plenty of opportunities because I solve problems.
Typically, no they do not. They may have excellent "butt in seat" metrics, but that means very little for quality of work.
> If you can fake it for interviews and in order to advance your career, you’ll definitely go further, but never feel bad about either faking it or not being able to.
If by faking it you mean a little embellishment or studying up before an interview then that's fine. But I have a good knack for catching phonies. And once I find you've been dishonest about your experience or knowledge I throw that resume out and interview is over. Be prepared, honest, and enthusiastic.
Basically with any profession you need to be motivated to excel. I wouldn't hire a medical assistant who just wanted a paycheck. I'd want someone who wants to help people, learn and grow.
I smirk a little at the slightly oblivious people who put a ton of gravitas on throwaway apps, but to me it feels like down to earth people along with people working on truly exciting things greatly outnumber them.
Sure, a girl who loves working at bakery might be struggling to make ends meet; but if she's also genuinely happy with her career then what does it matter? Work is where the average person will spend most of their time, so I just don't think it's worth it to go into a field you hate in the hope that you can retire early.
It matters because "struggling to make ends meet" is a lot of stress and can get in the way of a lot of things. It still might have been a better choice for her than taking an alternative path that would have exchanged that for a career she was miserable in, but it still matters.
Many are turned away from programming because of its geek allure. They think it isn’t for them because they didn’t care for Star Trek. It’s time to rectify the impression. Programming can be a pragmatic career choice, just as law or architecture or medicine can. No more, no less.
But work is work. It can be a job. However, as a career, it's easier to move from one job/environment to another.
I mean, sure you could some other craft or industry that you don't love or god forbid dislike (banking, nursing, building homes) so that it can pay the bills and enable you to buy a house. You don't need to get into programming to do that. BUT programming enables you to live a certain lifestyle because of its unique attributes that is part and parcel of the job. The end game here is - do we live to work OR do we work to live?