27 ms·

I think I have 1, 2, 3 no problems after 35+ years of programming -- I still love it, I still learn stuff, and I'm shockingly experienced in a rather large amou

I think I have 1, 2, 3 no problems after 35+ years of programming -- I still love it, I still learn stuff, and I'm shockingly experienced in a rather large amount of subfields. The problems is #4. 1,2,3 are 'easy' given time and someone who's dedicated and actually LOVES that job. #4 requites two (at least). In my 35y career I can count on the fingers of one hands the time where I really, REALLY "clicked" with someone and we both ran away with it. Needless to say, in all the cases, we still are on each other xmas card list, regardless of time/space. But that's the scary bit, to really, REALLY "collaborate" you need someone who's already pretty much 'there' on the 1,2,3 listed there, and the chance of meeting someone like that is low. I don't say it's 'rare', I say it's 'low' and if you factor other things like personality, lifestyle and so on, it makes it actually 'rare'... I treasure the people I can collaborate with, because it's magic. It's like, as a musician, when you jam and the band just 'gels' and stuff starts happening, it gives you a little shiver in the spine area that is unique. But hell, it's rare.

yuchi 8y ago
Just my 2 cents after no more than 10y of career. The idea of letting other grow has nothing to do with resonating with them and form a bigger wave — you need to really want them to succeed and really fight for that to happen. In my personal growth path I think I'm this close to reach that — but my ego is practically sabotaging it from the inside. I still can't let myself go in background-mode. And I'll pay for this sooner or later. </personal-emotional-burst>
sbuttgereit 8y ago
I'm about a decade behind you experience-wise, but I can tell you that I've seen #4 a few times. What's interesting is that in each case I can say it didn't feel like #4 was happening until I looked at the experience in retrospect. It's almost like had we of been mindful or trying to achieve that, we would have been too self-conscious of ourselves to have actually succeeded. It was also a more broad cultural trait, it was a team that collaborated together well (sometimes kinda large teams, too). And most of the time there was a key leader or two that seemed to be key in bringing out that quality in the team. I can also say that many of those teams still keep in touch, even if loosely, in some cases (now) decades later.
- la6470 8y ago
  I like folks who drink at work
Waterluvian 8y ago
Maybe the true measure of having #4 is being someone who can magnify others who don't already possess all these traits.
- rhizome 8y ago
  I'm no master, but IME #4 involves a kind of "playing dumb" until the people involved sync up. Kind of like tutoring, but for your working style, and in the practice of bedside manner (which is already rare in general). #4 also necessarily involves a sublimation of ego, the likelihood of which among masters of #1,2,3 is left as an exercise for the reader.
  - busterarm 8y ago
    I think 1-4 are ordered the way they are by priority. That makes me extremely uncomfortable because I feel like in my career I've been a master in the reverse order, 4-1. This could explain the unusual paths that I've taken, but I still feel like I'm a long way from reaching my full potential while still in my mid-30s.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- vbuwivbiu 8y ago
  I can't see how #4 is possible without #1
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
riantogo 8y ago
#4 starts happening almost magically when you reach a level of “maturity” where you are okay to cede control. You can visualize it as a Venn diagram where you have your bubble of what you think is the perfect system/product. Now every other person will have their own bubble and it will never overlap perfectly. #4 involves getting the best execution in the overlapping space and some bits of all the non-overlapping spaces. Suddenly you have an inclusive and almost always, better product which is more than your initial bubble. Everyone is vested in it. Everyone is fulfilled and magnified.
- vbuwivbiu 8y ago
  Ceding control is fine if you like the way your collaborator does things, but what if you can't trust them ? What if they have consistently done things the wrong way ?
  - jmiserez 8y ago
    Then you or they don't have #1 covered.
  - taeric 8y ago
    I'd say two is more key. Most people seem to hold on to control as a way to avoid failure. Let people fail. Just make sure you have a safety net to keep things moving. Having kids helps underscore this. Let your kids fall. Just don't take them to the Grand canyon right away.
    - vbuwivbiu 8y ago
      what if your team can't afford those failures and you're responsible ?
      - ativzzz 8y ago
        Then hire better people
      - taeric 8y ago
aerophilic 8y ago
100% agree, #4 is where the magic happens. It isn’t something that “just happens” you need to be deliberate and intentional in making it happen. In my experience, the right leadership, converging on the right vision makes it happen. But you absolutely need the shared vision. I have been incredibly fortunate in my career to have either been a part of, or leading groups that truly jelled. In every case, it doesn’t last forever, But while it lasts it is incredible. For those that never experienced it, there are two parts to achieve it: 1. Find people who put the “mission” first. The only way true collaboration happens is when the people collaborating stop thinking about “what is in it for them” 2. Find something “worthy” of you to work on. It can be as grandiose as the company mission, or it can be as pedestrian as improving your tiny bit of the world. But whatever it is, it has to resonate with you at a deep emotional level. What I have found is that #4 of the article is almost a natural outcome of you can manage my two items (Assuming the team has 1-3). But yes, it is not something that “just happens”.
austincheney 8y ago
In JavaScript the problem is #2. People who develope in this technology want it easy right the fuck now. Failure avoidance is absolutely the name of the game. It is so prevalent there is even a name for it: invented here. I can say this in all fairness as somebody who writes in that language fulltime for more than a decade.
- em-bee 8y ago
  that's the downside of javascript being the only game in town. to get away from it use typescript or coffeescript or some other alternative language that translates to javascript. since choosing such a language requires extra learning, that pretty much leaves all "want it easy right now" people behind.
  - austincheney 8y ago
    > that's the downside of javascript being the only game in town. Why? I don't see the correlation between the technology and the rampant immaturity or unrealistic expectations of people developing in it. I have also experienced this immature temperance from people with a long history of developing in other languages coming into JavaScript and deliberately sacrificing common sense for insecurity resolution, which suggests the immaturity isn't simply due to a low barrier of entry.
tzjmetron 8y ago
The problem might be with you.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
watwut 8y ago
Ability to magnify and becomming deep lifelong friends should be two different things. The other person can teach you or offset your weaker points or bring out the best work put of you without being perfect himself and without relationship between the two people becoming marriage like.
- em-bee 8y ago
  the ability to magnify is one factor that enables friendships, so it makes sense that they are often seen together.
  - watwut 8y ago
    I don't see how is that. Friends and making me better at work are different. People who magnify me at work often have completely different hobbies, livestyles and incompatible woldview about personal lives. Sometimes the thing that makes them.less friends (assuming they are respectful etc) is what makes them magnifiers. I suspect they are seen together when people make work their complete social circle so their emotional needs are not met unless collegues fill them too.
    - em-bee 8y ago
      well, maybe we use different criteria for finding friends. for me friends are people that i can trust, and that support me. it doesn't take more than one thing of common interest to become friends (and that trust and support) sometimes that common thing is a hobby, a lifestyle or a worldview. but sometimes it is work. having friends at work doesn't mean that i hang out with those friends in my free time. we have multiple social circles. at work, family, different groups of friends (eg different hobbies, each is another social circle), and in each of those circles we may have friends. some closer than others.
matwood 8y ago
#4 is definitely rare. I've had it three times in my 20 or so years working. Both times I still talk to those people weekly, even 10+ years later. It was funny at the time, because other people in the office thought we hated each other in both cases. The arguments that came out from the whiteboard were known around the company, yet we hung out every weekend and knew almost everything about each other. The 'arguments' were really just us hashing out ideas and trying to find the best solution. Last I heard, some of the software we developed then is still in use today. For me at least, that feels like a success that we made some decent architectural decisions given the constraints at the time. Luckily, one of the times for me the other person was 10 years older. He was able to give me perspective that the team dynamics we had were very rare and to cherish them. I knew he was right, but didn't expect them to be as rare as it turned out.
ksec 8y ago
Would the chances of #4 happening comes with age, or I mean the chances of 1,2,3 happening, which is more like the prerequisite of #4? I just wanted to mention #4 is exactly what makes Apple Apple. Or the old Apple. Steve made it so a group of people working together could have the results more than hundreds working in other company combined. Apple did it in a era when they had much lower resources compared to all of its competitor. The collaboration was real, or as Steve would put it, hey balanced each other, and the total was greater than the sum of the parts. Today Apple seems more like cooperation under Tim Cook. They have 100x more resources, but bend gate on iPad Pro, XS Modem reception, MacBook Staingate, lots of horrid logic board design choices. Keyboard. The list goes on and on.

yuchi 8y ago

Just my 2 cents after no more than 10y of career. The idea of letting other grow has nothing to do with resonating with them and form a bigger wave — you need to really want them to succeed and really fight for that to happen. In my personal growth path I think I'm this close to reach that — but my ego is practically sabotaging it from the inside. I still can't let myself go in background-mode. And I'll pay for this sooner or later. </personal-emotional-burst>

sbuttgereit 8y ago

I'm about a decade behind you experience-wise, but I can tell you that I've seen #4 a few times. What's interesting is that in each case I can say it didn't feel like #4 was happening until I looked at the experience in retrospect. It's almost like had we of been mindful or trying to achieve that, we would have been too self-conscious of ourselves to have actually succeeded. It was also a more broad cultural trait, it was a team that collaborated together well (sometimes kinda large teams, too). And most of the time there was a key leader or two that seemed to be key in bringing out that quality in the team. I can also say that many of those teams still keep in touch, even if loosely, in some cases (now) decades later.

la6470 8y ago
I like folks who drink at work

Waterluvian 8y ago

Maybe the true measure of having #4 is being someone who can magnify others who don't already possess all these traits.

rhizome 8y ago
I'm no master, but IME #4 involves a kind of "playing dumb" until the people involved sync up. Kind of like tutoring, but for your working style, and in the practice of bedside manner (which is already rare in general). #4 also necessarily involves a sublimation of ego, the likelihood of which among masters of #1,2,3 is left as an exercise for the reader.
- busterarm 8y ago
  I think 1-4 are ordered the way they are by priority. That makes me extremely uncomfortable because I feel like in my career I've been a master in the reverse order, 4-1. This could explain the unusual paths that I've taken, but I still feel like I'm a long way from reaching my full potential while still in my mid-30s.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
vbuwivbiu 8y ago
I can't see how #4 is possible without #1

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

riantogo 8y ago

#4 starts happening almost magically when you reach a level of “maturity” where you are okay to cede control. You can visualize it as a Venn diagram where you have your bubble of what you think is the perfect system/product. Now every other person will have their own bubble and it will never overlap perfectly. #4 involves getting the best execution in the overlapping space and some bits of all the non-overlapping spaces. Suddenly you have an inclusive and almost always, better product which is more than your initial bubble. Everyone is vested in it. Everyone is fulfilled and magnified.

vbuwivbiu 8y ago
Ceding control is fine if you like the way your collaborator does things, but what if you can't trust them ? What if they have consistently done things the wrong way ?
- jmiserez 8y ago
  Then you or they don't have #1 covered.
- taeric 8y ago
  I'd say two is more key. Most people seem to hold on to control as a way to avoid failure. Let people fail. Just make sure you have a safety net to keep things moving. Having kids helps underscore this. Let your kids fall. Just don't take them to the Grand canyon right away.
  - vbuwivbiu 8y ago
    what if your team can't afford those failures and you're responsible ?
    - ativzzz 8y ago
      Then hire better people
    - taeric 8y ago

aerophilic 8y ago

100% agree, #4 is where the magic happens. It isn’t something that “just happens” you need to be deliberate and intentional in making it happen. In my experience, the right leadership, converging on the right vision makes it happen. But you absolutely need the shared vision. I have been incredibly fortunate in my career to have either been a part of, or leading groups that truly jelled. In every case, it doesn’t last forever, But while it lasts it is incredible. For those that never experienced it, there are two parts to achieve it: 1. Find people who put the “mission” first. The only way true collaboration happens is when the people collaborating stop thinking about “what is in it for them” 2. Find something “worthy” of you to work on. It can be as grandiose as the company mission, or it can be as pedestrian as improving your tiny bit of the world. But whatever it is, it has to resonate with you at a deep emotional level. What I have found is that #4 of the article is almost a natural outcome of you can manage my two items (Assuming the team has 1-3). But yes, it is not something that “just happens”.

austincheney 8y ago

In JavaScript the problem is #2. People who develope in this technology want it easy right the fuck now. Failure avoidance is absolutely the name of the game. It is so prevalent there is even a name for it: invented here. I can say this in all fairness as somebody who writes in that language fulltime for more than a decade.

em-bee 8y ago
that's the downside of javascript being the only game in town. to get away from it use typescript or coffeescript or some other alternative language that translates to javascript. since choosing such a language requires extra learning, that pretty much leaves all "want it easy right now" people behind.
- austincheney 8y ago
  > that's the downside of javascript being the only game in town. Why? I don't see the correlation between the technology and the rampant immaturity or unrealistic expectations of people developing in it. I have also experienced this immature temperance from people with a long history of developing in other languages coming into JavaScript and deliberately sacrificing common sense for insecurity resolution, which suggests the immaturity isn't simply due to a low barrier of entry.

tzjmetron 8y ago

The problem might be with you.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

watwut 8y ago

Ability to magnify and becomming deep lifelong friends should be two different things. The other person can teach you or offset your weaker points or bring out the best work put of you without being perfect himself and without relationship between the two people becoming marriage like.

em-bee 8y ago
the ability to magnify is one factor that enables friendships, so it makes sense that they are often seen together.
- watwut 8y ago
  I don't see how is that. Friends and making me better at work are different. People who magnify me at work often have completely different hobbies, livestyles and incompatible woldview about personal lives. Sometimes the thing that makes them.less friends (assuming they are respectful etc) is what makes them magnifiers. I suspect they are seen together when people make work their complete social circle so their emotional needs are not met unless collegues fill them too.
  - em-bee 8y ago
    well, maybe we use different criteria for finding friends. for me friends are people that i can trust, and that support me. it doesn't take more than one thing of common interest to become friends (and that trust and support) sometimes that common thing is a hobby, a lifestyle or a worldview. but sometimes it is work. having friends at work doesn't mean that i hang out with those friends in my free time. we have multiple social circles. at work, family, different groups of friends (eg different hobbies, each is another social circle), and in each of those circles we may have friends. some closer than others.

matwood 8y ago

#4 is definitely rare. I've had it three times in my 20 or so years working. Both times I still talk to those people weekly, even 10+ years later. It was funny at the time, because other people in the office thought we hated each other in both cases. The arguments that came out from the whiteboard were known around the company, yet we hung out every weekend and knew almost everything about each other. The 'arguments' were really just us hashing out ideas and trying to find the best solution. Last I heard, some of the software we developed then is still in use today. For me at least, that feels like a success that we made some decent architectural decisions given the constraints at the time. Luckily, one of the times for me the other person was 10 years older. He was able to give me perspective that the team dynamics we had were very rare and to cherish them. I knew he was right, but didn't expect them to be as rare as it turned out.

ksec 8y ago

Would the chances of #4 happening comes with age, or I mean the chances of 1,2,3 happening, which is more like the prerequisite of #4? I just wanted to mention #4 is exactly what makes Apple Apple. Or the old Apple. Steve made it so a group of people working together could have the results more than hundreds working in other company combined. Apple did it in a era when they had much lower resources compared to all of its competitor. The collaboration was real, or as Steve would put it, hey balanced each other, and the total was greater than the sum of the parts. Today Apple seems more like cooperation under Tim Cook. They have 100x more resources, but bend gate on iPad Pro, XS Modem reception, MacBook Staingate, lots of horrid logic board design choices. Keyboard. The list goes on and on.