34 ms·

I agree completely, and this resonates with me particularly because I'm one of the many programmers also serious about other creative endeavors (in my case, the

by biztos 10y ago

I agree completely, and this resonates with me particularly because I'm one of the many programmers also serious about other creative endeavors (in my case, the visual arts). But it's worth considering that in larger companies, management is often terrified of the creative aspect of programming, because it messes with their primary goal of predictability. Thus they seek, many of them openly and explicitly, to make all technical roles fungible. And as much as that's hurtful to us creative programmer types, it's not an irrational position for them to take. The fact (or hope) that fungible programming roles can be more easily outsourced, especially to cheap-labor countries, is of course seen as a bonus. This situation presumably gives a big advantage to any organization willing to engage with the creative aspects of programming, but I am starting to think it's in the nature of organizatins themselves to stop embracing that risk after a certain size is reached. (Not that this is an argument against the portfolio idea. Even if you're going to work as a fungible cog, you'll probably get a better cog-job faster with a decent portfolio.)

PuffinBlue 10y ago
There's definitely a place, probably the majority, for programming jobs that are relatively 'turn key'. There's probably a decent analogy in product photography. Unless you're going high end, bashing out well lit, well edited and well presented product imagery lies firmly towards the technical end of the photography technical - art spectrum. Trouble is, many companies think the want these 'product photography' programmers but in reality they need the equivalent of 'stock photography'. And stock photography is one of the most difficult and challenging technical/artistic balances in the industry. Both turn out similarly neutral end products that can be used almost anywhere and replicated, but getting to those final products requires very different mindsets and approaches. That's likely stretching the metaphor more than it can handle but hopefully illustrates the point! And as you mentioned, having that 'personal portfolio' that allows you to sell yourself (another important distinction I made in another comment) will get you the job ahead of someone who doesn't have one.
marcosdumay 10y ago
> it's not an irrational position for them to take. It's about as rational as decreeing that it must not rain on Fridays, and then proceeding to fire the nearest person every time it does. They do have some very good and rational reasons why they wish programming was not a creative job. When they assume they can change reality by wishing it, they completely destroy their people's (outsourced or not) productivity, throwing the cost of everything into the stratosphere, and the quality way under the floor.
- biztos 10y ago
  I think the key -- the point at which the position becomes (to me) rational -- is to knowingly accept lower quality, less innovation, etc. in order to achieve predictability. It's a continuum, so of course nobody ever gets 100% predictability with software. But most of us, if we really needed to, could ratched down our productivity to a level where we almost always delivered exactly what we said we would in each sprint or other schedule unit. And I think that is the crux. Most people who write software don't want to live like that, but there are a whole lot of managers dreaming of a shop floor full of "individual contributors" who are not very individual, and plenty of CEO's who will happily take that over cat-herding their way to the next iPhone. That should give a big advantage to any company capable of embracing a little chaos and giving a happy home to talented and creative programmers. But when I look around and see even, say, Facebook -- a company that needs to innovate and seems to know that -- building developer-hostile open-plan offices, it makes me think we may all be doomed.

by biztos 10y ago

PuffinBlue 10y ago

There's definitely a place, probably the majority, for programming jobs that are relatively 'turn key'. There's probably a decent analogy in product photography. Unless you're going high end, bashing out well lit, well edited and well presented product imagery lies firmly towards the technical end of the photography technical - art spectrum. Trouble is, many companies think the want these 'product photography' programmers but in reality they need the equivalent of 'stock photography'. And stock photography is one of the most difficult and challenging technical/artistic balances in the industry. Both turn out similarly neutral end products that can be used almost anywhere and replicated, but getting to those final products requires very different mindsets and approaches. That's likely stretching the metaphor more than it can handle but hopefully illustrates the point! And as you mentioned, having that 'personal portfolio' that allows you to sell yourself (another important distinction I made in another comment) will get you the job ahead of someone who doesn't have one.

marcosdumay 10y ago

> it's not an irrational position for them to take. It's about as rational as decreeing that it must not rain on Fridays, and then proceeding to fire the nearest person every time it does. They do have some very good and rational reasons why they wish programming was not a creative job. When they assume they can change reality by wishing it, they completely destroy their people's (outsourced or not) productivity, throwing the cost of everything into the stratosphere, and the quality way under the floor.

biztos 10y ago
I think the key -- the point at which the position becomes (to me) rational -- is to knowingly accept lower quality, less innovation, etc. in order to achieve predictability. It's a continuum, so of course nobody ever gets 100% predictability with software. But most of us, if we really needed to, could ratched down our productivity to a level where we almost always delivered exactly what we said we would in each sprint or other schedule unit. And I think that is the crux. Most people who write software don't want to live like that, but there are a whole lot of managers dreaming of a shop floor full of "individual contributors" who are not very individual, and plenty of CEO's who will happily take that over cat-herding their way to the next iPhone. That should give a big advantage to any company capable of embracing a little chaos and giving a happy home to talented and creative programmers. But when I look around and see even, say, Facebook -- a company that needs to innovate and seems to know that -- building developer-hostile open-plan offices, it makes me think we may all be doomed.