8 ms·
We don't need titles like that at all. Let's change rockstar to MVP Developer, Ninja to Builder, Guru to Experienced Builder, and the 3rd type of developer desc
by Karrot_Kream 9y ago
We don't need titles like that at all. Let's change rockstar to MVP Developer, Ninja to Builder, Guru to Experienced Builder, and the 3rd type of developer described in GP to Maintenance Developer. I think the industry could go a long way if it admits that it needs all 4 of these types of developers, so that expectations were transparent for employees and needs are transparent for developers.
- samcodes 9y agoThere are those who get it done RIGHT, and those who get it done RIGHT NOW.
- matfil 9y agoYes to both of these, but there are other options as well. The frustrating ones are those who talk a good talk about "doing things right" (and, generally, talk a lot...), but then work on something for an age and come back with a solution that's objectively worse than the "RIGHT NOW" solution we've been using in the interim.
- logfromblammo 9y agoI object to those terms. The rockstar is most definitely not the MVP. To the extent that I have worked with any, they are the insufferable primo donnos that fill the garbage bin and set it on fire then they proselytize their own trash fire to management until they think it is "hot", "energetic" and "enlightened". The rest of us then get stuck dealing with their legacy issues. If you're going to title-ify it, how about "prototype developer"? The others can be "foundation developer", "transition developer", and "maintenance developer". It's still meaningless as long as different companies won't standardize on those titles. We likely all know which category we belong to now, and which one we want to be. We also know that any company that asks directly for a "rockstar", "ninja", or "guru" is probably one to be avoided.
- vehementi 9y agominimum viable product
- logfromblammo 9y agoBut you see now how the TLA could be ambiguous.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]