4 ms·

The idea that if you don't program outside of work you're not a good programmer is just silly. I can understand that you might regard with some suspicion the a

The idea that if you don't program outside of work you're not a good programmer is just silly. I can understand that you might regard with some suspicion the abilities of someone who has never in their entire life written code outside of work. But, the idea that you must always continue to do so even when you have a day job programming is utter nonsense. Programming isn't my weekend hobby anymore. Why should it be? I get to do it every day at work and get paid for it now. That was the point of making it my career. It was something I already enjoyed doing and was good at that I could also make a living by doing. Am I automatically less passionate about it because I'm doing it for profit now? Of course not. I use my free time to do all of the other things that I enjoy doing. It's ok to have more than one passion. It won't harm your programming ability for you to program during the day and paint or write music in your spare time. On the contrary, you are more likely to show up for work each day refreshed and enthused about what you are doing precisely because you are doing other satisfying things after work.

raganwald 16y ago
edit: http://raganwald.posterous.com/all-that-jazz http://raganwald.posterous.com/all-that-jazz
- blahblahblah 16y ago
  "Given any mechanism for filtering people, I claim that there are smart, productive people who will be filtered out. These are called false negatives. It is impossible to create a repeatable hiring process that does away with false negatives." While it is true that no test can avoid false negatives, it is also true that if the quantity measured by your test is uncorrelated with the phenomenon of interest then your test is neither sensitive nor specific and its PPV and NPV will be poor no matter where you set your decision threshold on the ROC curve. If you advocate such a test publicly, you should expect to be criticized for doing so. "I now understand that he was using a strategy for hiring people, not a metric for measuring me. His strategy for hiring people worked for his purposes. Why take that personally?" You could decide which programmer to hire based on skin color and write a blog advocating that "strategy" as well. (You'd get sued for doing so, but that's tangential to the point here.) If you did that, it would be unreasonable to expect the "it's just my strategy; it isn't about you, so don't take it personally" argument to be taken seriously. Whether you are aware of it or not, when you advocate a hiring practice publicly you are making an implicit claim that it has some validity and the community is right to spew vitriol in your direction if your hiring criteria are not well constrained within the realm of demonstrable merit and cross over into areas that are none of your damn business as an employer.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Your argument above intersperses merit with missing the mark. Merit: While it is true that no test can avoid false negatives, it is also true that if the quantity measured by your test is uncorrelated with the phenomenon of interest then your test is neither sensitive nor specific and its PPV and NPV will be poor no matter where you set your decision threshold on the ROC curve. Absolutely, and all strategies can be evaluated as strategies, on this basis. Missing the mark: "If you advocate X you should expect to be criticized." How about, if I advocate X, my argument should be criticized? Criticizing me for my words is the ultimate example of making something personal. I can deal with it, but I suggest you ask yourself whether making it about me is also a way of making it about you, getting emotionally invested in it in a way that is not good for you. JM2C, I am not laden down with emotional intelligence, so I can hardly advise you on how to be happy. Merit: "when you advocate a hiring practice publicly you are making an implicit claim that it has some validity" We agree. Missing the mark: The implied claim that when I advocate that a strategy has some validity as a strategy, I am also advocating it is a metric. Strategies are not metrics. Ultimate straw-man example: One strategy for hiring people on a small scale is to hire people you've worked with before in some capacity and have observed performing well. The ultimate reference check! I suggest that if you don't have a huge requirement for scaling, this can be very effective as a strategy. However, it is trivially easy to demonstrate that this is a terrible metric for evaluating someone's competence. And no, that isn't personal in any way, shape, or form. UPDATE: This is a really fruitful line of discussion, so I'm upmodding you. One thing that occurred to me as an example of a strategy that is not a metric is a University Degree. It's a certain kind of evidence of the ability to follow through on something for a few years, it is allegedly evidence that you have been exposed to basic computer science, and so on. I think it's reasonable to value a degree when hiring as part of a larger strategy. However, I don't think it's reasonable to use a degree as a metric for measuring programmers.
    - blahblahblah 16y ago
      We're in agreement about the "If you advocate X you should expect to be criticized" remark. It was inarticulately phrased. I am only interested in criticizing behaviors and ideas, not people. The intended meaning was "you should expect to have your idea criticized". The key point that I'm making is that, "I won't hire a programmer who doesn't pass my unsubstantiated litmus test based on a stereotype about programmers," is a qualitatively different statement than, "All else being equal, if I have two job applicants with similar qualifications and demonstrated merit to choose from and one of these applicants programs as a hobby in addition to performing their professional duties and the other does not, I am inclined to choose the one who programs outside of work." The latter is a defensible strategy. The former is a cargo cult hiring practice, should be criticized, and will inevitably offend because it carries with it an implicit assertion of truth for an unproven stereotype. The phrasing of the original post more closely resembles the cargo cult hiring practice statement.

raganwald 16y ago

edit: http://raganwald.posterous.com/all-that-jazz http://raganwald.posterous.com/all-that-jazz

blahblahblah 16y ago
"Given any mechanism for filtering people, I claim that there are smart, productive people who will be filtered out. These are called false negatives. It is impossible to create a repeatable hiring process that does away with false negatives." While it is true that no test can avoid false negatives, it is also true that if the quantity measured by your test is uncorrelated with the phenomenon of interest then your test is neither sensitive nor specific and its PPV and NPV will be poor no matter where you set your decision threshold on the ROC curve. If you advocate such a test publicly, you should expect to be criticized for doing so. "I now understand that he was using a strategy for hiring people, not a metric for measuring me. His strategy for hiring people worked for his purposes. Why take that personally?" You could decide which programmer to hire based on skin color and write a blog advocating that "strategy" as well. (You'd get sued for doing so, but that's tangential to the point here.) If you did that, it would be unreasonable to expect the "it's just my strategy; it isn't about you, so don't take it personally" argument to be taken seriously. Whether you are aware of it or not, when you advocate a hiring practice publicly you are making an implicit claim that it has some validity and the community is right to spew vitriol in your direction if your hiring criteria are not well constrained within the realm of demonstrable merit and cross over into areas that are none of your damn business as an employer.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Your argument above intersperses merit with missing the mark. Merit: While it is true that no test can avoid false negatives, it is also true that if the quantity measured by your test is uncorrelated with the phenomenon of interest then your test is neither sensitive nor specific and its PPV and NPV will be poor no matter where you set your decision threshold on the ROC curve. Absolutely, and all strategies can be evaluated as strategies, on this basis. Missing the mark: "If you advocate X you should expect to be criticized." How about, if I advocate X, my argument should be criticized? Criticizing me for my words is the ultimate example of making something personal. I can deal with it, but I suggest you ask yourself whether making it about me is also a way of making it about you, getting emotionally invested in it in a way that is not good for you. JM2C, I am not laden down with emotional intelligence, so I can hardly advise you on how to be happy. Merit: "when you advocate a hiring practice publicly you are making an implicit claim that it has some validity" We agree. Missing the mark: The implied claim that when I advocate that a strategy has some validity as a strategy, I am also advocating it is a metric. Strategies are not metrics. Ultimate straw-man example: One strategy for hiring people on a small scale is to hire people you've worked with before in some capacity and have observed performing well. The ultimate reference check! I suggest that if you don't have a huge requirement for scaling, this can be very effective as a strategy. However, it is trivially easy to demonstrate that this is a terrible metric for evaluating someone's competence. And no, that isn't personal in any way, shape, or form. UPDATE: This is a really fruitful line of discussion, so I'm upmodding you. One thing that occurred to me as an example of a strategy that is not a metric is a University Degree. It's a certain kind of evidence of the ability to follow through on something for a few years, it is allegedly evidence that you have been exposed to basic computer science, and so on. I think it's reasonable to value a degree when hiring as part of a larger strategy. However, I don't think it's reasonable to use a degree as a metric for measuring programmers.
  - blahblahblah 16y ago
    We're in agreement about the "If you advocate X you should expect to be criticized" remark. It was inarticulately phrased. I am only interested in criticizing behaviors and ideas, not people. The intended meaning was "you should expect to have your idea criticized". The key point that I'm making is that, "I won't hire a programmer who doesn't pass my unsubstantiated litmus test based on a stereotype about programmers," is a qualitatively different statement than, "All else being equal, if I have two job applicants with similar qualifications and demonstrated merit to choose from and one of these applicants programs as a hobby in addition to performing their professional duties and the other does not, I am inclined to choose the one who programs outside of work." The latter is a defensible strategy. The former is a cargo cult hiring practice, should be criticized, and will inevitably offend because it carries with it an implicit assertion of truth for an unproven stereotype. The phrasing of the original post more closely resembles the cargo cult hiring practice statement.