4 ms·
I will add a personal anecdote from software development. On one project I had a difficult objective (to write a database that met certain criteria). I had neve
by ljw1001 10y ago
I will add a personal anecdote from software development. On one project I had a difficult objective (to write a database that met certain criteria). I had never done database work before.
For the first year, I worked with almost no supervision and developed a routine where I would select an area to work on, give it a week, and if I could find no good solution, would switch to something else. All the while I read many related technical papers. Often after a couple weeks of "not working on the problem" I would think of a clean solution and implement it fairly quickly.
After that year, I got a new boss who insisted that I schedule my work using agile techniques, which meant that when I started something I had to focus on it until it was delivered, while trying to meet my estimates, planned to at most a two-day delivery cycle.
My productivity in the second year was terrible and much of the coding I did then sucked, as it was full of hacks designed to make my first, sloppy approach work quickly.
For me, downtime, and reading papers that were indirectly related to my problem area, vastly increased the quality and quantity of work done.
- fuzzfactor 10y agoYou've got it right, it works that way in computer science similarly to how it does in natural science. If you require balance relative to the mainstream, maximum scientific creativity is probably not for you. In expensive unique laboratories which often require years of assembly before productive creation of technologies can begin, it is easier to appreciate why the higher-performing individuals do not pursue much idleness. Seeking eminence is also a major productivity drain for someone who would otherwise be the most capable of breakthroughs at the bench. Anecdotally over a lifetime, seeking recognition for a million dollar breakthrough consumes the time & resources needed for more than one equivalent breakthrough that could have been.