18 ms·

Top developers can have a life outside coding

• patio11 10y ago
  I propose the Daenerys Targaryen test. If you know who Daenerys Targaryen is, you do not have "no time." You have priorities which included "I wish to know who Daenerys Targaryen is." No judgement! I do, too! But if you know who Daenerys Targaryen is and you're dissatisfied with your career growth, you should attempt to consciously be aware of the fact that you can choose different things in the future. It takes minutes to set up a web presence as a software developer. It takes 1~3 hours to stick a flag in the Internet about one topic. Having one flag stuck in the Internet beats zero flags, by a lot. You can keep doing this as you have time available. (Think less "submit bug fixes to OSS projects" and more "write an essay which shall endure regarding a topic which is professionally relevant to you." To pick one of the hundreds of things in this genre produced by an HN member, see https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology.html https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2012/hft_apology.html where HN's own yummyfajitas explains, in a useful and citable fashion, how order books work. You almost certainly know one topic well enough to post something which clears that bar of utility on any given day.) You could also, I don't know, invent Rails, but you do not have to invent Rails to get career benefits out of working publicly. After you have a flag stuck in the Internet, there are a variety of ways to get value out of it. The simplest one is using it as a conversation piece when you're cold-opening conversations with folks who are relevant to your career. For example, if you've decided to stick a flag into (picking a random example) ActiveRecord optimization, and you're attempting to talk your way into a job interview with a Rails shop, "I see you're a Rails shop. I would like to talk to you about potential opportunities at your company." is _substantially_ improved by "Hiya, I see you're a Rails shop. I wrote a detailed guide to ActiveRecord optimization (see here). I would like to talk to you about potential opportunities at your company." Another one -- also not hard! -- is to put a call-to-action at the bottom of the essay saying "If you're reading this, it is probably because you are interested in ActiveRecord optimization. So am I! If you've got hard problems with ActiveRecord optimization I would love to help you solve them. We should chat; here's my email. "
  • Wonnk13 10y ago
    > You almost certainly know one topic well enough to post something which clears that bar of utility on any given day I'm only 27, but I don't believe this. I know just enough to know I don't know anything deeply. Does the internet need another github page regurgitating the same stuff as everyone else?
    • firasd 10y ago
      I used to write quick blog posts some years ago, and post on social media often, but I never wrote something I considered a professional article because of hesitations like you're expressing: it needs to be 'uniquely insightful', it needs to be 'applicably useful', it needs to be 'well written.' Then one day I was like 'screw it' and started posting to Medium. I've written ~7 things so far, quick articles, tutorials, or reposting a slideshow I made for other reasons, and they have all been read and been provided recommendations/likes/shares/feedback to some degree. In terms of career growth, it's not been an instant magical boost, but it's more like 'networking' in that it enables people to connect with you, laying groundwork for collaboration in the future. The thing is, certain people you can reach at a certain time are a unique factor in what drives interest in your writing. Maybe someone didn't see the other github page, but they saw yours. Give it a shot.
    • patio11 10y ago
      Github pages seem to be a very suboptimal way to publish for professional purposes unless you decide to design them, since the credit for whatever you publish there goes to Github rather than to you. (Not an exaggeration, either: I got quoted in the BBC recently as "this page on Github.") I don't know what you know, but I bet it is a lot more than what you think you know. I was 27 once, too. My day job at the time involved scintillating subjects like dealing with edge cases in parsing the CSV file format used to encode the results of the central Japanese university examination. (センター試験) A fun edge case, which you absolutely have to handle correctly, is how to calculate the English subscore for someone who has a medical waiver from the speaking comprehension portion on account of being deaf. I assert without fear of contradiction that if I had published on that topic, in Japanese or English, I'd be the world's leading publicly accessible authority on that question. How many posts in that genre would it take to totally own that file format, which is only documented in a single out-of-print booklet whose copies are guarded like cherished relics of an ancient civilization the likes of which we'll never see again? My over-under is ten. There are higher saliency problems in the world than that CSV file -- oh goodness, are there -- but there are hundreds of people with hiring authority who care about that CSV file very keenly indeed. (I'd not particularly recommend working for any of them, but one problem at a time right.) What's the weirdest problem you've solved in the last year?
• doorty 10y ago
  I used to code 24/7, and have "startup" side projects back in college, but 8 years later, and I like having a life outside of work. It also makes me fresher and more motivated when I come to work.
  • goldenkey 10y ago
    Seems to be a trend that those who have been programming for years actually program more sparingly. I was similar. Programming now is more of a tool than a burning passion. "I am programmer, destroyer of worlds", not "I am programmer, I make random shit all the time, at the cost of being a well rounded person"
• partycoder 10y ago
  "Top developer" is really subjective and depends how to score them. AI? bioinformatics? embedded programming? web applications (frontend, backend)? compiler design? graphics rendering? simulations? games? Then, top at which level... in your company? in your city? in your country? in the world?...
• onion2k 10y ago
  Something many businesses seem to forget is that if you want a developer to be the technical face of your business then they need to be able to write great code, but they also need to be able to chat to people at networking events, make small talk with clients, explain things in non-technical ways to investors, and so on. Employing people who have interests outside of coding really helps with that. Likewise, if you're a developer who has ambitions of being a CEO, or an evangelist, or a team lead, then you need to be able to talk to people who aren't developers about things that aren't development, and that means having interests outside of code.
  • tluyben2 10y ago
    Maybe (? Not trolling I do not know) in SV and certainly in the HN echo chamber it works like that but when talking about banks or big 'old' companies you do not have to write great code or chat at events or explain stuff to investors or make small talk. No paper data (modern research seems to be test-group-of-five anyway) but most devs I meet are like this. The kind of ux/ui conscious iknowwhatrecursionis coders are not that common really. And those people do not work weekends or nights. 9-5 5 days a week and 25 vacation days per year. Nice salary too: never a millionaire but a nice (if you like that) quiet life.
  • partycoder 10y ago
    You are referring to a spokesman or entrepeneur. A good developer is not necessarily those.
    • UK-AL 10y ago
      But if your a cto, you often are spokeperson and a developer at the same time. That's what he's saying
      • partycoder 10y ago
        "Top developer" doesn't necessarily mean top in terms of hierarchy in a company, it can mean top in terms of productivity.
    • 10y ago
• Ace17 10y ago
  Why are we making a special case for software developers, on points we would agree on in other professions? Let's say you're making a movie, and you're hiring your music composer. Both candidates have nearly identical CVs/experience/recommandations. - Candidate 'A' says "I'm only doing this for money, I can't show you any of my work because of NDAs". - Candidate 'B' says "I spend a lot of time composing in my freetime, here's a link to my soundcloud page". Which one are you going to hire?
  • raverbashing 10y ago
    Do you ask your doctor if he does charity work? I'd also think musician NDAs are in place while the project is not out, while developer one are usually longer
    • kinkdr 10y ago
      No, but on the other hand, do you think Jordan became what he became just by merely showing up for team training every day?
      • saiya-jin 10y ago
        no company in this world can afford, or even realistically expect to have a team full of Jordans. would be nice for the owners, but that's not how this world is laid out
      • yoz-y 10y ago
        There is a world of difference between "showing up for training" and "not having life outside basketball"
      • PhasmaFelis 10y ago
        A lot of people are taking the article as an attack on people who really do want to code 24/7. I don't think that was the intent, though I suppose the author could have been more diplomatic about it. If nothing satisfies you more than throwing your entire being into your work, then that's fine. Do what you love, and be happy. The problem isn't the people who are blissfully coding from sunup to sundown. The problem is the people who would prefer to have some more time for themselves and their friends and loved ones, and are buffaloed (by both supervisors and peers) into believing that that's not allowed. It's infuriating to see people being treated like that. If the author seemed angry or confrontational, that's why. There's enough work in this industry that everyone should be able to find their niche.
• kinkdr 10y ago
  I disagree. If you want to be the best and be highly successful, then you have to work hard. If you don't, someone else will. There are plenty of companies and positions where you can have a great work/life balance, but if you want to be the best, just as in everything else in life, you have to work harder than everybody else.
  • jcrawfordor 10y ago
    I take great pride in the quality of my work. That's exactly why I stop working when I go home. That's why I demand an excellent work-life balance from my employers. If what being "the best" gets you is no life outside of work, then I'd rather be bad at my craft and retain the ability to pursue multiple interests.
    • kinkdr 10y ago
      Just to clarify that I didn't imply that being good at your job and having a life are mutually exclusive. What I meant is that if you want to be the best in your field or you want your startup to succeed, then you do have to sacrifice some other things. (The article mentioned "Top", not just good)
    • jesserayadkins2 10y ago
      I have the same sentiment: I take great pride in what I do, and I love doing programming. For the same reason, I also want a work-life balance. But for me, it's not about actually having a life. It's about having time for my own side projects, because I want to grow both professionally (where the project may have code that I can't talk about) and personally (where I can completely gush about everything that I've done).
  • stevetrewick 10y ago
    How so? If I'm 'the best' surely I can do my thang quicker and be off to some enriching theatre production while everyone else is still scratching their heads. It's those poor non best suckers who have to work hard to keep up. It's an odd definition of a winning state that includes "must work harder than everyone else"
• stevetrewick 10y ago
  >We, as an industry, are going to a dangerous place when we don't just expect, but require people to keep working after work. For what values of 'industry'? I mean, I totally agree that if this is your local view then you are in a bad place but IME this is far from universal.
  • pjmlp 10y ago
    Sadly the IT fashion industry tends to follow SV, like other industries follow Paris, Berlin and Mailand.
• jkot 10y ago
  I think this article is detached from reality. Most people who contribute to OS are on low income, unemployed or students. Top developers in banks and startups dont have time for that, or are forbidden by their company. Being "top developer" is one of the most family friendly jobs that ever existed. You can work remotely at your own time. I quit cubicle and started working on opensource because I had family. > you might develop a mental illness, like depression, Many people in IT are a bit weird. Again its one of the most friendly jobs that exists. Developer does not even have to speak to people, all can be done via email. > 20-year-old white guys with no responsibilities and/or with enough income to "buy" more free time Good old racism and man hate is doing just fine.
  • manmal 10y ago
    Do you have little kids? If yes, how many hours can you cut off daily without feeling bad for not spending time with them?
    • jkot 10y ago
      All hours? Sometimes I code with a baby on my lap. They are in next room when I take break. And little baby sleeps like 16 hours a day. It has some trade-offs, we dont have a car or macbooks, but it works just fine.
      • the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
        > And little baby sleeps like 16 hours a day. That will end soon :)
        • stedaniels 10y ago
          Reading jkot's comments in not sure who's disconnected from reality. I do love coming across people who think they are doing things right and normal, everyone must think the same as then. Such ignorance is always astonishing. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
• Wintamute 10y ago
  > Who can afford to keep coding after an 8-hour work day of coding? Who doesn't get harassed in the open-source community? 20-year-old white guys with no responsibilities Yeah, stopped reading at this point. Your "intersectional social justice theory" is just casual sexism and racism to me.
  • stedaniels 10y ago
    Uhuh. Because the author didn't list half a dozen examples you cast them as sexist and racist. Bravo. We need more people like you in society!
    • stingraycharles 10y ago
      The point is that the author should have elaborated on the circumstances that are required to be able to do that, rather than generalizing based on gender or race.
    • gh-lfneu28 10y ago
      No, because the author specifically singled out a sex and a race in a sweeping generalization in negative context with no reasoning -- we cast her as sexist and racist. But on the second part I agree - we do need more people like Wintamute in society.
  • spraak 10y ago
    Maybe racist by the dictionary definition (judging by skin color) but it holds no force against actually preventing a white male from doing anything. I as a white male can underachieve my way into anything while other genders and people of color must work much harder for the same.
    • zo1 10y ago
      >"Maybe racist by the dictionary definition" That is the only definition that matters. Everything else is subjective, relative and open to abuse by bad people from all sides. >"I as a white male can underachieve my way into anything while other genders and people of color must work much harder for the same." Have you seen white people in poverty? They are no different than black people in poverty, and are just as needing of our help. To make a distinction and help one over the other is plain old racism according to the dictionary/textbook definition and has no place in an inclusive society. #Edit. Formatting.
• bluecalm 10y ago
  The author seems to be very prejudiced against people who make different choices or are different demographic than them: >>One could think that having kids or building a family is a choice. Even assuming this is true (it really isn't) I am not one to take offense easily so I will just say this is plain stupid. I have chosen to not have kids nor build a family. It was something I was thinking about for many years and decided I will be happier that way. Most of my friends have chosen otherwise and I suspect most of them will be happier with their choices. How it's not a choice I don't know, it's one of the most ignorant things I've read recently. >>Neglecting your partner and kids in order to build a pet project? Seriously? Is a pet project more valuable than seeing your kids grow or sharing your life with people you love? It isn't. It doesn't change the fact though that people who don't value those things and spend more time coding/learning/experimenting are going to be better at programming with all other factors staying equal. >>Destroying your social life, abandoning all your hobbies, quitting working out just to contribute to open-source? Will this make you happy in the long term? No, it will make you not as good as people who do that though. (assuming they are equally disciplined and organized) >>So what can we do? Understand that you will not be elite and anything you do in life unless you dedicate your whole life to it. That's how it is. You don't need to be at the top to be very good, make tons of money, have fulfilling career and contribute a lot to projects you work on. There will always be people better and more productive than you because they have chosen to sacrifice other things you are mentioning like children, families, social life etc. There are two different goals: 1)lead a happy balanced life 2)be one of the best at something You can't have both, have some respect for people who has chosen differently than you. There is no need to throw insults like: >>Who can afford to keep coding after an 8-hour work day of coding? Who doesn't get harassed in the open-source community? 20-year-old white guys with no responsibilities and/or with enough income to "buy" more free time (i.e: nannies, cleaners, good healthcare, a car to commute, etc.). Or you know, people who prioritize contributing to open source over for example having kids. Have some respect, the world is a better place because of them. I guess next time there will be complaining how you can't be an elite basketball player without dedicating your life to basketball or elite musician without practicing for hours to no end.
  • tluyben2 10y ago
    > I am not one to take offense easily so I will just say this is plain stupid. I have chosen to not have kids nor build a family. It was something I was thinking about for many years and decided I will happier that way. Most of my friends have chosen otherwise and I suspect most of them will be happier with their choices. How it's not a choice I don't know, it's one of the most ignorant things I've read recently. Yep, it is weird to me why people tell me they have no choice to have kids; just 'do it'. You can reason about it and decide not to but 15 years after deciding we still get strange looks or whenever I am nice to a kid people still say: ahhh you see!? So I see that people who are pressured still do while really not into it however it is a choice.
• xiphias 10y ago
  It's great that the author is able to finish his pet projects in 20 hours if he sets a deadline. I'm not able to finish in that time frame for anything that I'm interested in doing as a pet project.
  • Manishearth 10y ago
    (the author is a she, I think)
• fsloth 10y ago
  I feel that there is a huge gap between this writing and my daily experience as a developer. I've been thanked for my work and I'm understood to be a valuable asset for my employer in my role as a software engineer - and never I've been required to have extracurricular development to facilitate my career progress. Maybe the fact that my work has fairly deep domain knowledge requirements and I know my stuff pretty well puts me in this category - but I don't know. I like coding in my free time as a way to explore subjects though, so I do this anyway (but nothing that could be considered good software engineering, good engineering is grueling work while fast prototyping is fun.)
  • Manishearth 10y ago
    Not everyone has the same experience, basically. You're lucky to have such a job. Similarly, I'm lucky to have a job where I get to work on open source directly. I'll probably still do random fun coding stuff in part of my free time. Not everyone is that lucky; and I've heard plenty of stories from folks in that category. But yeah, what she's talking about is not everyone's experience, fortunately :)
• ACow_Adonis 10y ago
  You can be hired into a position in an arbitrary hierarchy by having a life outside of coding. You can be popular while having a life outside of coding, or have something you wrote become popular. If that's what you mean by "top developer", then yes, I completely agree. If you mean "the skill of actually programming", then no, that's absurd. Would you tell someone they can be a "top sports player", if they have a life outside of playing that sport? A world class chef who doesn't give themselves over to cooking? Anything that actually involves skill? A musician? A painter? Because if that's the case, then no. I'm sorry, you're battling against reality. There's a little thing called opportunity cost, and whether we like it or not, how far you can walk down a particular skill-set is DIRECTLY RELATED to how much time and work you put into it. What's perhaps a better message is both: a) employers, you aren't actually hiring superstar coders, and if you want to, you'll either pay for it, or better make your workplace the kind that attracts them. And b) developers, you're probably not going to be the best in the world at what you're doing...and you know what...at least from a personal psychology perspective...that's ok. Now from an economic perspective, if you're worried that you're not going to be able to hold down a well paying job because they demand too much...well, there you've either got a problem with reality (skills take a long time and hard work an practice to build), or the economic system, cause maybe there's a lot of desperate people out there who can code for peanuts and will take shitty conditions...and capital is being amassed into fewer and fewer hands and increasingly has no interest in paying to upskill you or whether you can have a reasonable life outside of work. :P
  • PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    I think people are reading too much into the word "top," which appears nowhere outside the headline. Variants on the phrase "good developer" appear several times, and should perhaps be the focus; "top" may have been a poor choice of words, but I think the intent is clear on a charitable reading.
    • ACow_Adonis 10y ago
      Be that as it may, I think the point still stands. My self and my (now) wife, as a living example, generally try to live close to work. We've rented for 10 years, moved 5 times now, and lived in a 1 bedroom apartment together for 5 of those and try to live without a car. Sacrifices many of our friends simply do not contemplate as "possible" On top of that, I've done my best to learn as much as I can on work's time. All other things being equal, will the person who makes life choices, be it living out in the burbs, watching TV, having children earlier, partying or drinking, etc etc, be top developers, relative to me/us? No. In fact, I can squeeze in hobby/health that takes place with the time/money (albeit not one that uses space) savings afforded by these sacrifices and still compete with them, and the synergies afforded will still probably put me ahead. Now there are some people, perhaps those with rich parents who gave them access to computers earlier than me, buying them big spatious houses adjacent to where they work, with all the right connections and contacts who can probably out-compete...and as hard as this is to admit, probably out-ability me, but that's life, and that's reality. But the other reality, in addition, is developer wages and conditions, ESPECIALLY in the US, are rediculously/obscenely high at the moment, and I'm well aware that there are people below me in terms of living conditions who are probably even hungrier for those positions than myself. Could you be a "top developer" without putting in the extra hours that the top developers do? Either because you love it or because you're making a strategic decision to do so? All other things being equal, I don't think so. And if you DO, i think its probably because its due to being in a social structure that pretty much thumbs its nose at even trying to live up to the ideal of a meritocracy...
• dkopi 10y ago
  The main reason I see for "working after work" is actually for "learning after work". While companies might try their best to invest in your professional development - in the end your career is your own responsibility. While you might have to work hard to convince your employers to let you move from part of the stack to another, no one can dictate what your side projects are except yourself. Working after work is what "saves" a programmer's resume from listing "20 years in <obsolete language> using <obsolete API> until the company I worked at for 20 years shut down".
  • goldenkey 10y ago
    A good job should have you using <modern language> with <modern frameworks> for <efficient code> that makes you <feel like a wizard> But you have to look for jobs like that. Jobs that stifle and make you want to code things after work because the work coding environment is so poor, are jobs that I watch out for now. I've been in the situation you describe before. Never again will I do grunt work.
    • dkopi 10y ago
      True, but: A. A good job today might not be A good job in another 3 years. Companies aren't quick to dump their existing code just so they can see "we now use <modern language> and <modern framework">. B. very often <good job> expects you to already be experienced with <modern language> and <modern frameworks>. By learning at home at your own spare time, you reduce the risk and ramp up time for them, making yourself a more desirable candidate. Try working on make files for a while. You'll miss grunt :D
      • goldenkey 10y ago
        Hah, I didn't mean the "grunt" buildtool for node. I meant dumb trivial repetitive work. I am understanding of legacy code. But at the same time, a good job will understand the pain of inefficiency and dull codebases have on a programmer. And so, someone shouldn't have to _just_ work on that shit all the time, they should be able to mix the burden with other developers in some kind of time ratio. For B) yes, of course. But once you get your first job, if you keep going and have good workplaces, you shouldn't need to really do much at home. I'm not trying to knock you, just wanted to put the warning out there for everyone else, because I've shot myself in the foot by joining gigs where a load of shit was dumped on me, and that was the main event. Fuck jobs where the main event is working on something totally unpleasant. No, I'm not a diva and understand that getting paid is to offset that - but still, some workplaces just don't have the understanding that you can't have someone work on sludge 24/7 and not expect them to become bitter.
• raarts 10y ago
  This blog post is obviously born out of frustration. I'd be interested in learning the circumstances. At a certain stage in life it's indeed frustrating that employers try to get more working hours out of you than they are paying for, and younger professionals seem to be more willing and able to. I'd like to offer OP the view that these places aren't generally good places to work anyway. Don't agree with some other commentors who lightly throw big words like racism around.
• erikb 10y ago
  Optimization is possible in most programmers schedule, true. But I still believe it's necessary to spend 30-60 hours a week for 11 months a year to successfully increase your skill. You can't cut off these either, if you want to be good. And your skill is bad at bargaining. You can't tell it "Listen to me skill, I have that other hobby as well. Give me a break!" Skill doesn't work that way.
  • goldenkey 10y ago
    Programming doesn't change much, frameworks might. Maybe for a college grad, they'll need to do that. But for someone who's been programming since they were young, additional time is not going to do much.
    • erikb 10y ago
      Reaching a point of competency even in playing Mozart on a violin takes a lot of time, and that doesn't change a bit for the next decade. Most people don't reach a level competency in their whole career, because they don't put in enough effort. Additionally have you spent some time without coding? Because I was upgraded to project manager I haven't actively coded in 4 months. I feel I'm significantly slower now. You forget the small details. Like yesterday I had to think about how to call "git mergetool". That meant my brain didn't think about why I would need to solve a merge conflict instead of doing something else (like ignoring one branch, or writing feedback on the pull request) but instead I've spent the time thinking about how to type the command. That doesn't directly slow you down, but that decreases your output significantly. We are talking "top developers", not average developers right? Yes most people think of themselves they are "top developers" but in truth most are "average" which is (arguably) less than "mediocre". If you are fine being "average" the whole discussion thread doesn't apply to you and I agree with you that slacking off for a few years doesn't change that status a lot.
      • goldenkey 10y ago
        Keyword, "much." Practice always helps but is not going to do much for a virtuoso.
• Mizza 10y ago
  The tragedy is that the blog post, and the resulting commentary here, are about identity, when the heart of the topic the author is _really_ talking about (if you actually RTFA) is class/capital. This tragic misdirection is the defining problem of our time. The people who are working, be it white collar "tech" employee or manufacturing/service worker are those either who are forced to do so because they will starve if they don't, or, in our industry (and perhaps social/medial work), the monastic types who write Free Software (or similar) because it is the morally correct thing to do. To say that it's because they are white or young or male (or even that this kind or service is a privilege and not a moral imperative) is the kind of misguided, thinly-veiled class erasure that the predominant strain of big-C Capitalism is currently benefiting from. Don't let people stereotype you. If you want improve your standing in the labour market, ORGANIZE, don't stereotype. Neoliberal capitalists are taking advantage of young people and poor people. Don't let them! If we play our cards right, they won't for much longer anyway! But please keep in mind that this kind of "ingroup/outgroup" mentality is a divisive thought pattern that deliberately works to their advantage! It has become common and tedious for a deliberate reason! Your heart is in the right place. All workplaces mistreat you. Blame your bosses, not your co-workers!
  • CamonZ 10y ago
    The irony of your communist commentary is not lost on me, you say we shouldn't in/out group while you're in/out grouping people in bosses vs workers. I'm a worker and on my last position I was at an outsourcing firm that while pretending to care about its employees underpayed us while overcharging their clients, whenever we wanted to get a raise the goalposts of what was necessary were moved so it wasn't achievable and the overwork was masked behind a "we care about quality" attitude. Given all of this understandably we had a very high burn rate for devs. I decided to grow up and begin to figure out how to do my own selling so I can charge what I want, work on the projects that I want and the hours that I want. I don't blame "Neoliberal capitalists" for my own failures, it's self-defeating and childish to not take control over your own destiny.
• dave2000 10y ago
  "expecting employees to keep up with new technologies, frameworks and languages entirely on their own" You're looking at this entirely the wrong way. You shouldn't expect your employer to spend thousands paying to train you. If you need those skills, or if they'd be useful to you, then it's in your best interests to learn them. Perhaps things are different if you're digging holes for a living but IT is currently about constant change and if you don't keep up then you're not as much use as people who do. Your employer doesn't care how you earn your living, and they don't care who does their work for them. They just want it done. If someone else can do it better than you, you're out. Frankly, though, you should want to keep up. If I were interviewing I'd be more interested in someone who was interested in development, not someone who's going to want to just sit there and wait for a personal, pre-paid invite to an overpriced training course.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• alxgbsn 10y ago
  There's a certain sense of irony that we're all here disagreeing on a Saturday.
  • goldenkey 10y ago
    Reading the comments in this thread is painful. I agree that a successful developer shouldn't need to program as a hobby. It is notable that the developer culture tries to attach itself like a headcrab to the developer industry. I prefer doing other things, I've been programming since the age of 12, coding is somewhat boring to me these days - I'd rather do mathematics. It is unfortunate that the youth think going to conferences and doing latenight hackathons is what makes them a programmer. Programming has always been about getting things built, a means to an end. I think the cultural pressure seems to be borne out of appearing smart. But programming isn't even a great way to make money, for an intelligent programmer. Trading securities _using_ programming is. Or using programming to do SEO affiliate programs, etc, etc. I think when you combine dumb people with programming, you get a cultural affinity so they can validate themselves. Experienced programmers seem to more bitter and less apt to program eclectic shit for giggles. It's more a tool to get important stuff done.
  • messel 10y ago
    Hahahaha. Should we be coding, reading about code, or doing fun non work stuff? Voting for the latter. Thanks for the wake up!
    • devdas 10y ago
      But coding is non work fun stuff.
    • matwood 10y ago
      Coding (or problem solving) IS the fun part for me. Stealing the idea from a Ray Lewis quote: I get paid to deal with everything else at work. The coding I do for free.
  • edem 10y ago
    I'm actually having a break while working on my OSS project. I will spend 2 more hours for a total of 5. And this is all I did this week. Not so hard, right?
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• andrewstuart 10y ago
  I am a recruiter and always ask this question - "Is programming just a job for you to get the bills paid, or do you have a broader interest?" The thing to understand, and what the author of this post has wrong, is that I am not looking to hear about how much TIME a developer spends on programming. I am wanting to hear the STORY of their personal interest. Because the truth is that if software development is a personal interest to you, then you will find a way to pursue that interest, within the time that you have. You'll find a nook or a cranny in which to dig about learning things and finding out new stuff - maybe for 30 minutes before you go to sleep, or on the train, or somewhere. The point is that employers want people who are INTERESTED - they are not necessarily looking for people who spend all available personal time pursuing an interest in software development. And I can tell you with certainty that if you claim to have a person interest in software development but you cannot find any time outside work to pursue that interest, then you are lying. Perhaps to both yourself and the recruiter, but certainly you are lying. If you have a personal interest then you are DRIVEN to pursue that interest. If you claim a personal interest but also say "I'm just too busy these days to do anything.", then you have failed to admit that in fact you do not have a personl interest, you just go to work to do your job and go home. So no, recruiters - at least this recruiter - are not looking for people who spend all non work time pursuing an interest in software, but are looking for people who can effectively articulate their passion and can explain how they DO fit it into their life. Talk to me, engage me in a conversation, explain in some depth the things that you do find interesting. This has nothing to do with spending hour up endless hour writing code, it has to do with connecting directly to your personal interest, to the thinking that you have done.
  • goldenkey 10y ago
    At the same time, programming isn't some noble rigorous science. Computer science is. Most jobs require slapjack programming. Physics, mathematics, chemistry, those jobs could benefit from the employee having an academic interest. But your 10 year+ experienced programmer is not going to benefit from having a "blazing passion." The best they'll do is learn how to use a new framework to make the code less arduous - they already know design patterns. Think about what you are saying.. Most programming jobs require very little actual rigor, it's more experience than anything.
• kd5bjo 10y ago
  A lot of comments are bringing up top athletes as a counterexample, which leads me to believe they don't understand what a high-level training regimen is actually like. I have a relatively unique persepective on this[1], so I thought I'd clarify a few things. Any sport is both mentally and physically exhausting, and it only gets more strenuous as you reach the higher levels. Nobody can keep this up all day, every day, for their entire working life; people who try flame out early and don't make it much of anywhere. Instead, the goal of the top players is to train as much as possible today without sacrificing their ability to continue training tomorrow. Usually, this is less time than an office job requires (but more strenuous). The rest of their time is spent in "recovery," which basically means whatever they want to do as long as it's not too taxing. The defining feature isn't spending their entire life on the sport, it's giving it priority: the rest of their life is scheduled around their training needs instead of scheduling training around their life. [1] I've been on sabbatical for two months at a tennis academy; some of the kids here will undoubtedly make it all the way to the pro circuit.
  • egjerlow 10y ago
    OT: Have you read Infinite Jest? I'm wondering how much of the life described in that tennis academy reflects reality.
    • kd5bjo 10y ago
      I haven't, but it's now next on my reading list; thanks for pointing it out.
      • ethanbond 10y ago
        It is such a daunting read, but goodness is it worth it. I'm having a bit of difficulty getting into other books after having read it because the writing style itself spoiled me so much. It's the first book that I wanted to start over literally the same day I finished it. Enjoy!
  • ACow_Adonis 10y ago
    I'm presuming the difference is that they're kids at a tennis academy. Someone is presumably paying good money for them to be there, and by the time they become professionals, they'll have spent XX years already in training, with someone else presumably working and funding their entire stay/attendance. This then presumes that those kids who do actually make it to the pro circuit aren't then the ones that also have the advantages and put in extra above and beyond the other kids (and with a little bit of luck on top). Now, I don't know what other people's life was like growing up. I mentioned in my other comments that conceivably there are some kids who had parents who both supply them with knowledge, fund their study, their lifestyle, gave them opportunities and access, and that such people might subsequently have greater abilities than myself, and maybe those people will become top notch coders even with some hobbies and time on the side. But no one is paying to have me (or others) learn to code or update my skills. No one is paying to send me to a training camp or academy. I taught myself computers and I know many others did too. There was/were limited academies when I grew up, and there aren't any pros for us to learn from except ourselves now. Many of us aren't paid to do our coding or our study, many workplaces or academies aren't even interested in that kind of coding or study. And, of course we burn out. No shit. But that doesn't mean that if you don't want to become top rate you don't have to put in more than a paltry 8 hour workday. Indeed, EVERY decent coder I've known has done it. Not a single one I know hasn't. I have not met any decent coder that hasn't been doing their own thing on their own time and that wasn't interesting and successful in teaching themselves in their own time. The tennis kids have someone else to put in a workday so they can then spend hours per week at a leisure activity. Unless we are very lucky, we spend our work/school day so we can ferret away the time and resources to focus on the stuff we actually value, and then that knowledge then gets transmitted back to the workplace...
• pjc50 10y ago
  I've known quite a few "24/7" programmers, but the smartest I've ever met worked a 4 day week so he could spend more time with his family. He was naturally exceptional though, stood out even in a company filled with people with Cambridge 1st-class degrees. Again this is making me think I should write my piece on programming while suffering chronic fatigue.
  • matt_wulfeck 10y ago
    I would definitely love to read that. I have a friend that has lime disease/chronic fatigue and I often wonder how they get stuff done. It's hard enough for me to work hard with a normal regiment. I think your story would be inspiring.
• edem 10y ago
  This article is a bit lopsided. I work for 8 hours and I work on open source projects when I have the time. This means that it is no more than 5-6 hours per week on average. I don't feel that I don't have a life after spending a Saturday morning with some OSS contribution. Life is not black and white. If you contribute or have your own projects you don't have to work on them all day. Several hours per week will quickly add up! The same stands for education. I am very concerned by work-life balance and few hours per week is not much. I can also read about the trends or some tech book when I travel or commute.
• johanneskanybal 10y ago
  Weird article. Every top company I've heard of is more into balanced normal people than extreme people. Perhaps made more sense 20 years ago when I started getting into computer science and you saw recruitment adds eith topic like "Do you hate talking to people?"
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• alkonaut 10y ago
  It's not that all good developers code as a hobby. A lot of them do, but most importantly almost no terrible developers code as a hobby. Recruiting developers isn't about finding ninjas so much as it is about avoiding the terrible developers. A nice github stat doesn't guarantee you are a good developer but it (almost) guarantees you don't suck. I completely understand asking potential hires for something they did out of pure curiosity. For me personally I'd likely have to point at something I made long ago before the kids ate my spare time but I can talk passionately about a hobby project, and I use that as an indicator when recruiting.
  • xyzzy_plugh 10y ago
    This does not match my experience. I've interview many candidates with github profiles that looked active who couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. What's worse is by reading their code on github, I will already form an opinion (sometimes very negative) before I even meet the person! I've especially noticed that these developer bootcamps that are rising in popularity produce a lot of github cruft.
    • alkonaut 10y ago
      You mean they have a "fake" history of github activity? Or just a lot of "activity" but nothing really substantial? Just having an "active" profile can be achieved by cloning a few repos and writing a few feature requests. You'd have to read the contents of their history of course, code and communication. Seeing how they reason about code in issue discussions or pull requests is valuable, even more so than reading the actual code. You make a good point about negative preconceptions from seeing someone's code. I suppose it's better (or at least no worse) than the negative opinion we may form from seeing someone's grades or previous employer.
• vinceguidry 10y ago
  At a certain point in any endeavor, you hit a point of diminishing returns. At that point, success becomes less about the logistics of getting enough practice in and more about the broader world. All arts exist in the broader world around them, programming even more so than most. You need to learn about that world. Just like with the arts, a great great many things can be likened to code. Anything else you learn how to do well will also make you a better coder.
• jasonme 10y ago
  I'm from China, where hard-working with a lot of overtime work is advocated in almost every internet-related company. Developer here do 996 the whole year in and out (for those of you who don't know the concept of 996, it means working from 9 in the morning to 9 in the late for 6 days a week in the office. But sadly, usually, a lot of the developers can only leave the office after 10 or 11 at night). Everyone knows this is bad for improvement and health, but company owners keep pushing everyone with salary and punishment, along with moral pressure, that only fighting this way, the company can survive in the big race in almost every industry area. For sure a lot of great things are happening in China, but I see most of them are based on bloodless and cruel company operation decisions and habits. Under this circumstances, I think hobby, family and every other thing that's not related to work is humanly possible. I curse the ones who started this for a long time in hell.
  • dsq 10y ago
    This is an important comment for those of us wishing an inside view on the Chinese working culture.
  • novel 10y ago
    > Everyone knows this is bad for improvement and health, but company owners keep pushing everyone with salary and punishment, along with moral pressure, that only fighting this way, the company can survive in the big race in almost every industry area. Do they do any research to prove 996 is really effective? I have a hard time imagining how one could stay productive for long in such working mode. Sometimes I have some hard deadlines (like a lot of other developers I guess) that requires to work 10-12 hours/day to get things done in time, but that usually lasts for a week, maybe two. And it's _already_ very exhausting. I'm wondering how exhausting it could be to work in such mode all the time...
    • jasonme 10y ago
      Because most of the Chinese company work in this pattern, I don't think a very pervasive research can be done and there is none I know that exists. I think it works when you are copying things with lots of entry level developers at low cost, like most companies do. You know, they will find something that's working great in America and Europe and copy the whole thing very fast and launch new ones. This is how you guys have Google, we have Baidu; you have Uber, we have Didi; you have Periscope, we have over 100 mobile video live apps, etc.. But if you are inventing things, this won't work at all. I think this is one of the major reason why we lack of innovative products all these years. This is a very common practice throughout the industry since about 2-3 years ago, and it's a very sad story every time I tell it.
• jcoffland 10y ago
  "One could think that having kids or building a family is a choice. Even assuming this is true (it really isn't)" What? Of course it's a choice. And I'm sorry but, you can choose to leave programming at the office and be a perfectly good programmer but if you don't love it so much that you do it for fun as well then you are not going to be a master programmer. Just like a classical violinist who only practices a few hours a day is probably not going to be a virtuoso.
  • falcolas 10y ago
    8-9 hours a day, 5 days a week, is not a "few hours a day". You also might be surprised to find that most professional violinists don't practice more than 2-4 hours a day. Have a look around Google, you might be surprised.
    • jcoffland 10y ago
      Most programmers spend much of their day not actually programming. Being at the office for 8-9 hours is not the same thing.
  • xyzzy_plugh 10y ago
    The best software engineer I know doesn't hold a degree in the sciences, has a family with 4 children, and spends little to no time out of the office writing code. I don't know if I agree with your assertion. There is more to life than programming, and I think, if anything, you need some of that to become a great programmer.
    • jcoffland 10y ago
      Maybe the best programmer you know is not that great. I'm not disputing that you can have a life and be a good programmer. You must have a deeper level of commitment to be an outstanding programmer.
• green_lunch 10y ago
  I started my own company 5 years ago to have a life outside of coding. The business depends on code, but I can choose when to go on vacation and work from home or at the office when I need to. It also helps that my wife runs the company with me. I finally made the decision to quit when my last boss called an emergency meeting on new years eve over webex, because she wanted to go to a party and also get our product released. She also is the one that caused our product to be delayed by at least a month due to her inability to manage the project.
• CydeWeys 10y ago
  > This blogging platform (Ghost) doesn't allow comments, but I'd love to hear your suggestions as well. Just give me a shout at @ladybenko! Is it really a blogging platform if it doesn't allow comments? Commenting to me is a prerequisite for something being a blog. Absent the possibility for interaction, it's not a blog, it's just a website.
• devishard 10y ago
  I'd make a stronger assertion: top developers do have a life outside coding. My experience is that people who stay until 9 writing code because they're "passionate" write a lot of code and implement a lot of features for a while, but the quality of the code is low because they're always tired when writing it. And after a year or so, a combination of burnout and the unmaintainability of their code forces them to quit, leaving the next group of programmers with something truly horrible. If that's your definition of "top developer" you can have all of them. IMHO, a top developer is someone who can produce a quality product from inception to completion, which requires being well-rested, taking care of their own needs, and having enough social life to be able to make their code decisions in their social context (because every program runs in a social context).
  • nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Further, I'd say most of the evidence indicates this. A sampling of it follows. We know regular sleep improves quality of life and thinking. We also know many people who don't have it think that's not true but prove otherwise in tests. ;) Quiet office vs cubicle research long ago showed being able to focus with minimal interruptions improved productivity. A person with friends and family trying to code nonstop will be closer to cubicle vs someone who does it less but allocates time to not be bothered. Finally, there's also data from experiments like Fagan's Inspection Process, Mill's Cleanroom, and Altran/Praxis' Correct-by-Construction that teams of smart people on regular schedule using the right methods and tools produce the highest quality software you can get. So, evidence is vastly in favor of a more moderate approach to developing software in one's free time. Even for a person who practically lives on a computer. The brain needs novel experiences and breaks from things. Just works better that way as connecting new dots is the basis for creativity. Gotta feed it more dots. :)
    • pantypants 10y ago
      I work from home whereas before I worked in an open plan office. As a developer. I do less hours now at home, but I only work the productive hours. If I'm not 'feeling it' I do something else, I don't have to sit there looking like I'm working, theres no-one watching me and judging me. I don't sit there until I get bored in that state to the extent I'll churn out code with a fuzzy head and so create inefficient inelegant code. If coding is all you do, I guarantee you're writing bad code. An hour when I'm in the zone is worth 2 days when Im not. If it takes me a day of taking a break to get into the zone its a net gain.
• nickpsecurity 10y ago
  I think this write-up might be more successful if it wasn't so sexist and racist. After reading lines like this... "Who can afford to keep coding after an 8-hour work day of coding? Who doesn't get harassed in the open-source community? 20-year-old white guys with no responsibilities and/or with enough income to "buy" more free time (i.e: nannies, cleaners, good healthcare, a car to commute, etc.)." I'd be led to believe that anyone contributing code, esp significant amount, to open-source projects after their day job is: white, male, upper-middle class, has no family, has no love for any family they have, and/or has no life after code. Whereas, I've read enough write-ups from OSS contributors to know they come in all kinds of personal circumstances. Plenty are quite committed to their families with OSS project of choice a hobby or passion. Women and non-whites stay a minority in tech and science in general but still significant contributions from them. I disregarded the harassment claim entirely, despite plausibility, after reading a line that slanders and misrepresents all kinds of contributors to push author's political beliefs that basically hate races and genders dominant in American and European software. I mean, if the writer regularly posts this stuff, then it's perfectly reasonable for others on projects to throw vitriole back to get the person to stop doing it or just leave. re the actual advice. The stuff below that are all good recommendations. Especially limiting oneself to certain number of hours on a specific project. I'd further say limit yourself to one project at a time. Also, it can help to limit time spent on things like Hacker News, Youtube, gaming. Things that are addictive and can take up more time than you expect. Put a hard limit on how long you'll spend on anything like that. Think about the limit itself, too.
• hiphipjorge 10y ago
  Here's the thing that this blog post is missing: It's a marketplace with competition. Yes, ideally, you shouldn't work outside work and spend all your free time doing other things, and there should be no world hunger. But it doesn't work that way. If I don't keep up to date and keep learning new things, someone else will (and the idea that this person is 20, white, male, and single seems a little racist and sexist to me). That other person will go on to do more stuff than I do if I don't keep up. That person will get compensated by the market for doing so by promotions, raises, not getting down-sized, or perhaps though success when starting their own company. Yes, it's f* up that a company will expect this out of every single developer and that shouldn't be the case. But, when I need to fire someone because I didn't get as much in my B round as I thought I would, you'd be crazy to fire the guy who is as good of an employee AND invests in his skill set. Personally, I love programming and do a lot of it outside of work because I really like doing it. Yes, there are a lot of biases in our industry, but often times it's pretty clear who the best programmers are and often times it's the one who have put in the hours. Nothing else. So yeah, don't code outside of work. You should definitely do that, but don't be surprised when your skill and your career suffer for it.
  • eloff 10y ago
    Exactly. And time invested in developing your skills, like any other education is a real investment. It accumulates over time and has real value down the road. A developer who spends a couple hours a day coding for fun is at an advantage over the others, but by the time he's been doing that for 10 years he/she will be on a completely different level to someone who hasn't. As another example, drinking, smoking marijuana, vegging out in front of the TV, insert whatever "vice" you want here that wastes time/energy, might not hurt you much every now and then - but to excess it's going to accumulate into a serious competitive disadvantage overtime. There are hard tradeoffs to be made between work-life balance and career success - and the results of those tradeoffs don't really become very obvious for a long time.
  • dasil003 10y ago
    I agree, but it's important to frame the issue. The reality is being a software developer is a pretty sought-after job. Yes, companies will do what they can to take advantage of any employee, but it's not like we're coal miners here. When you put in time outside of work to keep your skills up to date that is investing in yourself, not the company. But is it required to put in extra hours to stay competitive? All else being equal, of course it's a competitive advantage. Where that breaks down is that programming productivity is hard to measure and far from fungible. The scary truth is that the nature of the job you do might have more impact on your skill set progression than whatever you do in your spare time. If you are stuck maintaining some baroque legacy system then you might be developing domain knowledge that is useless anywhere else. Conversely, if you are directly interacting with customers, or collaborating with smart, experienced developers on hard problems, or addressing business problems from first principles, then your learning might be accelerated. In the end, developer jobs are definitely a marketplace, but not a commodity marketplace. There are many paths to success. For young developers I would definitely advocate putting in all the time you can simply because there is a big initial hump to get over before it even becomes apparent whether you have any potential or not. But once you are a competent developer, then domain knowledge and soft skills bring far more competitive advantage than learning the latest whiz-bang framework.
• nathan_f77 10y ago
  The author talks about open source as if someone is selflessly contributing their spare time for no real reason. Who does that? Whenever I work on open source, it's because I need something personally, and it doesn't exist unless I create it. It's like criticizing someone for spending all week at work, and then mowing their lawn or painting their house on a saturday. (Although I find programming to be 100x more fun.) If it's not fun, you're not getting paid, you're not doing it for yourself, then you really don't need do it. Unless you're doing it for clout or your portfolio, I guess.
• mto 10y ago
  Yeah it's absurd. When I talk about this with my friends in other professions they hardly believe it. None of the lawyers or editors consider writing open source contracts or publishing free magazines in their free time. And even if they do something like this - there was never a company that EXPECTED that at an interview. The last interviews I had there were more questions about mini pet projects than about my 10 years professional experience or my PhD thesis. Of course, when I was 15 I loved to program all my free time after school. Now I have wife, daughter, dog and being in front of a screen all day makes me very uncomfortable, no matter how much I like the subject. I am now much more comfortable with "researchy" positions - in all those interviews, no one ever asked me about my github profile or if I like to "learn" the flavour of the day web framework in my free time (no, I don't...).
• paulus_magnus2 10y ago
  belief that only people who code (for free) after work are passionate and/or good developers has become a "truth". No, but people with this trait will be easier to manipulate into staying longer hours for no extra pay.