10 ms·

The age ol' "How Software Companies Die"[1] has much on this point. The environment that nurtures creative programmers kills management and marketing types - a

The age ol' "How Software Companies Die"[1] has much on this point. The environment that nurtures creative programmers kills management and marketing types - and vice versa.... [1] http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/rants/how-companies-die.txt http://www.call-with-current-continuation.org/rants/how-comp...

prewett 10y ago
+5 Insightful! I've read that piece a number of times, and never come away with your conclusion. I always took away from it that the failing was managers trying to make things predictable, not that they have conflicting core values.
mrmrcoleman 10y ago
Great post but still nurtures the idea that programmers are somehow a special form of human. That idea is part of the problem.
- chadcmulligan 10y ago
  Programmer type personalities are in every industry (animators/graphic designers/techs..) in general the suits don't care about these people. It's just there are so many suits trying to extract money using programmers that causes all these discussions, and there are to few good programmers. I don't know if there was any other time in human history that there was a skill so in demand and with such a limited talent pool.
  - drawkbox 10y ago
    I think it is about creative and production modes, they are different to any human in those states. Being rushed or designate time to be creative is hard, there has to be a balance of on/off to allow creativity to happen from anyone. John Cleese probably put this most eloquently with "closed" and "open" states to allow creativity to happen in the human mind in this talk on how to be Creative [1][2] Now here's the negative thing: Creativity is not a talent. It is not a talent, it is a way of operating. MacKinnon showed that the most creative had simply acquired a facility for getting themselves into a particular mood -- "a way of operating" -- which allowed their natural creativity to function. In fact, MacKinnon described this particular facility as an ability to play.[2] Entertainment companies like Pixar, Valve, HBO, Netflix, independent standouts, etc, know how to create systems that help people get into the "open" state to create. Good software companies/game companies do as well from design to development and onward. [1] https://vimeo.com/89936101 https://vimeo.com/89936101 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMj_CFPHYc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMj_CFPHYc [2] genius: http://genius.com/John-cleese-lecture-on-creativity-annotated http://genius.com/John-cleese-lecture-on-creativity-annotate...
user5994461 10y ago
> The environment that nurtures creative programmers kills management and marketing types - and vice versa.... Misleading quote at best. That's only the first line of the article, written for thought provocation. There isn't anything in the article that prevent management or marketing from working with programmers.

prewett 10y ago

+5 Insightful! I've read that piece a number of times, and never come away with your conclusion. I always took away from it that the failing was managers trying to make things predictable, not that they have conflicting core values.

mrmrcoleman 10y ago

Great post but still nurtures the idea that programmers are somehow a special form of human. That idea is part of the problem.

chadcmulligan 10y ago
Programmer type personalities are in every industry (animators/graphic designers/techs..) in general the suits don't care about these people. It's just there are so many suits trying to extract money using programmers that causes all these discussions, and there are to few good programmers. I don't know if there was any other time in human history that there was a skill so in demand and with such a limited talent pool.
- drawkbox 10y ago
  I think it is about creative and production modes, they are different to any human in those states. Being rushed or designate time to be creative is hard, there has to be a balance of on/off to allow creativity to happen from anyone. John Cleese probably put this most eloquently with "closed" and "open" states to allow creativity to happen in the human mind in this talk on how to be Creative [1][2] Now here's the negative thing: Creativity is not a talent. It is not a talent, it is a way of operating. MacKinnon showed that the most creative had simply acquired a facility for getting themselves into a particular mood -- "a way of operating" -- which allowed their natural creativity to function. In fact, MacKinnon described this particular facility as an ability to play.[2] Entertainment companies like Pixar, Valve, HBO, Netflix, independent standouts, etc, know how to create systems that help people get into the "open" state to create. Good software companies/game companies do as well from design to development and onward. [1] https://vimeo.com/89936101 https://vimeo.com/89936101 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMj_CFPHYc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EMj_CFPHYc [2] genius: http://genius.com/John-cleese-lecture-on-creativity-annotated http://genius.com/John-cleese-lecture-on-creativity-annotate...

user5994461 10y ago

> The environment that nurtures creative programmers kills management and marketing types - and vice versa.... Misleading quote at best. That's only the first line of the article, written for thought provocation. There isn't anything in the article that prevent management or marketing from working with programmers.