4 ms·

> You are not paid to write code Well, actually yes, yes I am. You can make a compelling case that this shouldn't be the case, or that they people paying me a

> You are not paid to write code Well, actually yes, yes I am. You can make a compelling case that this shouldn't be the case, or that they people paying me are shooting themselves in the foot running things the way they're running things, but the fact remains that in today's daily standup/weekly status report/what have you done for me lately "agile" corporate environment, I am absolutely paid to write code and if I don't write code, they'll stop paying me.

ThomaszKrueger 10y ago
That is my experience as well. I have to do my personal development on my own time, buy my own books and pay for my own subscriptions. The other 8 hours if I am not writing code or behaving like I am, things go south pretty quickly.
crpatino 10y ago
Agreed, but to tie it up with the article... At first you are paid to write code, then you are paid to maintain it. You become part of the system you helped build. You are the steering wheel that alligns the overall thing's behavior with the interests of the organization that owns the thing. That's what author calls "adding value".
marrs 10y ago
Well, actually no, the author is right. You are paid to deliver results, be it adding new features, processing data, making widgets or whatever. The business really doesn't care how you do that. Obviously you do write code in the course of providing those results, and all of the author's examples of what you should be doing are still examples of writing code, but they are the minimum code required to deliver results. Another example of how you're not paid to write code is the frown you receive from stakeholders every time you say you are going to refactor something, or that you are going to rewrite the API to be RESTful. They don't care, and they shouldn't
- kordless 10y ago
  You are buying into the author's conflicted statements and continuing to spread the dissonance. Dissonance is what got us into this stupid Trump situation. I'm telling you that you can't tell someone who says they are paid to write code they aren't paid to write code and then rationalize some weak argument why you are "right". You aren't right because op is telling you they are paid to write code. All that matters is that "op" is "writing" "code" because they said they were. You don't get to say if they are or not, and the author doesn't get to either! It's completely asinine and blaming to speak for others actions. Stop doing it. It's ruining this place. <-- This last part is a blanket blaming statement speaking for all others and I really shouldn't say it. P.S. I've flagged the article given it's making "you" statements.
- whoops1122 10y ago
  technically speaking, no I m not paid to write code, if ask that question during an interview, company would tell you that they dont pay you to write code as well. However, when most of the companies's idea of "agile" development cycle is to have smaller goals and very short deadlines, you end up being a code monkey. A project may run better if you have time to design a better object structure, instead because of a tight deadline, we have to slap on 10 if and else if statements then call it a day. when making an enhancement? add 2 more if statements, fix a bug? put some if statements under the previous if statements. bottom line, because of the tight deadline, better code and better design means nothing. we become if statements code writing monkeys.
- JamesBarney 10y ago
  I think a thought experiment illuminates the difference. Two different but identical companies with unlimited vacation gets too people to do the same project. Workaholic Walter shows up to work 7 days a week, works 10 hours days for 3 months busting his butt to write a piece of software that ultimately fails because he spends so much time working he misses the big picture. Smart Steve does some research decides the project already exists in open source downloads it, sets it up in a week. Then decides to take a 10 weeks vacation because he just saved the company so much money. In these two situations Steve objectively did far better, but I bet your sweet butt that he gets fired, and Walter gets promoted. The problem is no one ever really knows how much value you added, or how much work you did. I've been on projects that were incredibly successful from a technical perspective. Objectively the product performed exactly like the stake holders wanted, the performance was great, it could run for months at the time, even while actively being configured by people completely unfamiliar with the software and not crash. It was still a failure because no one wanted to buy it. We spent a year kicking butt and still added 0 value to the business. But I will still paid. And I wouldn't have been paid any more if the project had instead resulted in an extra $12 million in revenue. You pay a hair stylist to cut your hair, not for the business deal you may or may not get because of it. Why someone pays you is different from what you are paid to do.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    > In these two situations Steve objectively did far better, but I bet your sweet butt that he gets fired, and Walter gets promoted. I wouldn't bet on that. Noone is aware that Walter overworked because noone saw him. Plus, he didn't delivered anything in the end.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      He delivered shit ton of code; managers have seen the progress pretty much daily, or at least weekly. The failure of the project can be blamed on many things - so ultimately, maybe Walter was just digging the right (albeit crude) ditch but at the wrong place. Someone else's ass may or may not get busted for the project flop (depends on the size of the company, usually). In the meantime, Steve gets sacked because he's obviously not working - so why he should get paid? The point is, companies would want you to focus on business goals, but in fact they pay you for the amount of code produced (and punish you if it's low).
- leepowers 10y ago
  > Obviously you do write code in the course of providing those results Well, then you _are_ being paid to write code. We can yammer on all day about how we're adding value, but the programming skill and talent has to be there first. So you're both being paid for the value of your skills (being able to code proficiently and efficiently) _and_ for increasing the equity or profit of the business. An analogy might help. When I pay a contractor to add improvements to my house my goals is to increase my home equity. So I am paying for value. But I'm also paying for his skill. Because if I get an unskilled contractor I might end up underwater. An unskilled contractor can cause me to go backwards, where the cost of fixing his bad work costs more than the equity boost. The same dynamic applies for bad programmers. Skill is the primary driver that causes any increase in value. > but they are the minimum code required to deliver results. We're not looking for the minimum amount code, but the best solution. Writing tests will add overhead to your code. At a minimum you could leave them out. But the benefits of rigorous testing can justify the investment of time.
carapace 10y ago
Well sure, but you're missing the point: If your managers are only measuring LOC produced they're playing on a lower "logical level" than if they were measuring something closer to the actual intended goal(s). Dijkstra: 'My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger.'
- jazzyk 10y ago
  Another relevant quote, by Bill Gates: 'Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight.'
D_Guidi 10y ago
The Best Code is No Code At All https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-best-code-is-no-code-at-all/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-best-code-is-no-code-at-al...
retreatguru 10y ago
Whenever solving a problem entails deleting a whole bunch of code and just writing a few clear lines - I love it. I think 'how wonderful! Look at all that code we are deleting!' I think is is line with what the author is getting at - it's about solving problems and the less systems and code the better.

ThomaszKrueger 10y ago

That is my experience as well. I have to do my personal development on my own time, buy my own books and pay for my own subscriptions. The other 8 hours if I am not writing code or behaving like I am, things go south pretty quickly.

crpatino 10y ago

Agreed, but to tie it up with the article... At first you are paid to write code, then you are paid to maintain it. You become part of the system you helped build. You are the steering wheel that alligns the overall thing's behavior with the interests of the organization that owns the thing. That's what author calls "adding value".

marrs 10y ago

Well, actually no, the author is right. You are paid to deliver results, be it adding new features, processing data, making widgets or whatever. The business really doesn't care how you do that. Obviously you do write code in the course of providing those results, and all of the author's examples of what you should be doing are still examples of writing code, but they are the minimum code required to deliver results. Another example of how you're not paid to write code is the frown you receive from stakeholders every time you say you are going to refactor something, or that you are going to rewrite the API to be RESTful. They don't care, and they shouldn't

kordless 10y ago
You are buying into the author's conflicted statements and continuing to spread the dissonance. Dissonance is what got us into this stupid Trump situation. I'm telling you that you can't tell someone who says they are paid to write code they aren't paid to write code and then rationalize some weak argument why you are "right". You aren't right because op is telling you they are paid to write code. All that matters is that "op" is "writing" "code" because they said they were. You don't get to say if they are or not, and the author doesn't get to either! It's completely asinine and blaming to speak for others actions. Stop doing it. It's ruining this place. <-- This last part is a blanket blaming statement speaking for all others and I really shouldn't say it. P.S. I've flagged the article given it's making "you" statements.
whoops1122 10y ago
technically speaking, no I m not paid to write code, if ask that question during an interview, company would tell you that they dont pay you to write code as well. However, when most of the companies's idea of "agile" development cycle is to have smaller goals and very short deadlines, you end up being a code monkey. A project may run better if you have time to design a better object structure, instead because of a tight deadline, we have to slap on 10 if and else if statements then call it a day. when making an enhancement? add 2 more if statements, fix a bug? put some if statements under the previous if statements. bottom line, because of the tight deadline, better code and better design means nothing. we become if statements code writing monkeys.
JamesBarney 10y ago
I think a thought experiment illuminates the difference. Two different but identical companies with unlimited vacation gets too people to do the same project. Workaholic Walter shows up to work 7 days a week, works 10 hours days for 3 months busting his butt to write a piece of software that ultimately fails because he spends so much time working he misses the big picture. Smart Steve does some research decides the project already exists in open source downloads it, sets it up in a week. Then decides to take a 10 weeks vacation because he just saved the company so much money. In these two situations Steve objectively did far better, but I bet your sweet butt that he gets fired, and Walter gets promoted. The problem is no one ever really knows how much value you added, or how much work you did. I've been on projects that were incredibly successful from a technical perspective. Objectively the product performed exactly like the stake holders wanted, the performance was great, it could run for months at the time, even while actively being configured by people completely unfamiliar with the software and not crash. It was still a failure because no one wanted to buy it. We spent a year kicking butt and still added 0 value to the business. But I will still paid. And I wouldn't have been paid any more if the project had instead resulted in an extra $12 million in revenue. You pay a hair stylist to cut your hair, not for the business deal you may or may not get because of it. Why someone pays you is different from what you are paid to do.
- user5994461 10y ago
  > In these two situations Steve objectively did far better, but I bet your sweet butt that he gets fired, and Walter gets promoted. I wouldn't bet on that. Noone is aware that Walter overworked because noone saw him. Plus, he didn't delivered anything in the end.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    He delivered shit ton of code; managers have seen the progress pretty much daily, or at least weekly. The failure of the project can be blamed on many things - so ultimately, maybe Walter was just digging the right (albeit crude) ditch but at the wrong place. Someone else's ass may or may not get busted for the project flop (depends on the size of the company, usually). In the meantime, Steve gets sacked because he's obviously not working - so why he should get paid? The point is, companies would want you to focus on business goals, but in fact they pay you for the amount of code produced (and punish you if it's low).
leepowers 10y ago
> Obviously you do write code in the course of providing those results Well, then you _are_ being paid to write code. We can yammer on all day about how we're adding value, but the programming skill and talent has to be there first. So you're both being paid for the value of your skills (being able to code proficiently and efficiently) _and_ for increasing the equity or profit of the business. An analogy might help. When I pay a contractor to add improvements to my house my goals is to increase my home equity. So I am paying for value. But I'm also paying for his skill. Because if I get an unskilled contractor I might end up underwater. An unskilled contractor can cause me to go backwards, where the cost of fixing his bad work costs more than the equity boost. The same dynamic applies for bad programmers. Skill is the primary driver that causes any increase in value. > but they are the minimum code required to deliver results. We're not looking for the minimum amount code, but the best solution. Writing tests will add overhead to your code. At a minimum you could leave them out. But the benefits of rigorous testing can justify the investment of time.

carapace 10y ago

Well sure, but you're missing the point: If your managers are only measuring LOC produced they're playing on a lower "logical level" than if they were measuring something closer to the actual intended goal(s). Dijkstra: 'My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger.'

jazzyk 10y ago
Another relevant quote, by Bill Gates: 'Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight.'

D_Guidi 10y ago

The Best Code is No Code At All https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-best-code-is-no-code-at-all/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-best-code-is-no-code-at-al...

retreatguru 10y ago

Whenever solving a problem entails deleting a whole bunch of code and just writing a few clear lines - I love it. I think 'how wonderful! Look at all that code we are deleting!' I think is is line with what the author is getting at - it's about solving problems and the less systems and code the better.