4 ms·

Joel is super strong advocate of : 1) private offices for each programmer, 2) free, nicely catered lunch every day (everyone eats together and bonds), 3) usual

by edw519 16y ago

Joel is super strong advocate of : 1) private offices for each programmer, 2) free, nicely catered lunch every day (everyone eats together and bonds), 3) usual internet stuff - comfortable office, dogs, flexible schedules etc. On one hand, a little voice inside of me cries, "Yes! This is what it takes to produce great software: a programmer-appreciative environment." On the other hand, another little voice claims, "This stuff is all well and good, but nothing more. It's cosmetic, not functional, like putting perfume on a pig." I have been in many situations with Class A office space, private offices, catered team-building breakfasts and lunches, etc., etc., etc. and was ready to jump out the window. Why? Because the work sucked and all the window dressing in the world wasn't going to change that. Then I think back to some of my most favorite projects and remember the great work that we did. Sometimes in squalor-like conditions, sharing cubicles or tables, sitting in the server room with too much air conditioning or in the warehouse without enough, eating vending machine garbage and drinking old coffee because that was all there was. Bottom line? The work itself is 100 times more important than the working conditions. Sure, everything being equal, I'd rather have nicer digs. But everything not being equal, I'll choose the better project every time, no matter what the environment is like. I suspect Joel gives the programming environment more credit than it deserves. His people are probably happy, and the office helps. But the real reason is the work itself, and they'd be almost as happy no matter what the office was like.

ergo98 16y ago
You worked in great conditions but on a bad project, and you hated it. You worked in poor conditions, but on a great project, and you loved it. I think you jump to conclusions saying that therefore the work is more important than the conditions. Joel isn't saying that conditions alone suffice, but that it's an input of worth. Please, for the sake of HN, work at a place with great conditions and a great project and report back on whether it was better than great.
edanm 16y ago
Actually, it's not only about making programmers happier. That's a large part of it, but private offices also make programmers more productive, because they have less interruptions. The way Joel figures it, programmers are your most important asset, not to mention a huge expense (salary-wise). Paying extra to make them more effective is usually a winning strategy.
nickelplate 16y ago
"But everything not being equal, I'll choose the better project every time, no matter what the environment is like." Really? Don't get me wrong, I largely agree with the spirit of your post, but... there are some real shitholes out there. At one job my chair was so bad that I could barely move at the end of the day. I had to exercise more often than usual to ease the back pain. The office was often dirty because the owner was too cheap and would only send a cleaner when he really had to. I don't care if you're working on an OS kernel or movie special effects, doing something you love should not come at the expense of your health or personal hygiene. Now I don't particularly care for free lunches or private offices (I prefer shared offices myself, with 3 or 4 developers per office). But the reason Joel's message resonates strongly with so many people is precisely because most developers work in conditions few professionals would put up with. Even in software companies where software is (or should be) a profit center, the accountants, office administrators, etc. often work under much better conditions than the developers.
memset 16y ago
I almost feel bad for posting this link, but it does provide some evidence that even at Fog Creek - the Holy Grail of great engineering environments - employees become burned out due to the fact that, hey, a lot of software problems need to be solved in a business are just as boring as the ones that the rest of us cube farmers have to solve. http://hicks-wright.net/blog/career-break/ http://hicks-wright.net/blog/career-break/

by edw519 16y ago

ergo98 16y ago

You worked in great conditions but on a bad project, and you hated it. You worked in poor conditions, but on a great project, and you loved it. I think you jump to conclusions saying that therefore the work is more important than the conditions. Joel isn't saying that conditions alone suffice, but that it's an input of worth. Please, for the sake of HN, work at a place with great conditions and a great project and report back on whether it was better than great.

edanm 16y ago

Actually, it's not only about making programmers happier. That's a large part of it, but private offices also make programmers more productive, because they have less interruptions. The way Joel figures it, programmers are your most important asset, not to mention a huge expense (salary-wise). Paying extra to make them more effective is usually a winning strategy.

nickelplate 16y ago

"But everything not being equal, I'll choose the better project every time, no matter what the environment is like." Really? Don't get me wrong, I largely agree with the spirit of your post, but... there are some real shitholes out there. At one job my chair was so bad that I could barely move at the end of the day. I had to exercise more often than usual to ease the back pain. The office was often dirty because the owner was too cheap and would only send a cleaner when he really had to. I don't care if you're working on an OS kernel or movie special effects, doing something you love should not come at the expense of your health or personal hygiene. Now I don't particularly care for free lunches or private offices (I prefer shared offices myself, with 3 or 4 developers per office). But the reason Joel's message resonates strongly with so many people is precisely because most developers work in conditions few professionals would put up with. Even in software companies where software is (or should be) a profit center, the accountants, office administrators, etc. often work under much better conditions than the developers.

memset 16y ago

I almost feel bad for posting this link, but it does provide some evidence that even at Fog Creek - the Holy Grail of great engineering environments - employees become burned out due to the fact that, hey, a lot of software problems need to be solved in a business are just as boring as the ones that the rest of us cube farmers have to solve. http://hicks-wright.net/blog/career-break/ http://hicks-wright.net/blog/career-break/