3 ms·

>They just shouldn't be de facto required to do so. I haven't read anybody saying you should be required to if you don't want to. Yet a lot of the responses ar

>They just shouldn't be de facto required to do so. I haven't read anybody saying you should be required to if you don't want to. Yet a lot of the responses are angry as if that's exactly what was suggested. The line I quoted about "people like you", I was mainly objecting to reading one sentence from someone, responding with "people like you.." and thinking that's ok. You don't know anything about them, I assume. Imagine someone speaking to you like that? Or maybe that's how people routinely speak to each other in your world, and it's perfectly fine. I hope not.

detaro 7y ago
The comment ghaff replied to said "If you don't have the desire to do this after work you probably shouldn't even be in the field". If people that do not want to do it shouldn't be in the field, it's pretty damn close to a requirement.
- yesenadam 7y ago
  Well, I guess it's just reading the comment two entirely different ways. The way I read it, it sounds like someone who loves programming, not being able to imagine how you would never want to program outside work–not 24 hours a day, but never at all. You know, for the fun of it. You make it sound like the guy is your boss, making it a requirement for employment that people do programming they don't want to do outside work hours. The guy said "probably" and "is how I look at it", but that wasn't enough–the words are still treated like he'd said "definitely" and "I'd make this a legal requirement" or something. Ah anyway.
  - detaro 7y ago
    Things don't have to be legal requirements to effectively be requirements. I'd hate to be considered not fit for tech by my coworkers, my boss, a potential employer, ... because of how I like to spend my free time, and if that sentiment is common it is a problem for people not fitting that expectation. Which I think is be bad, even if I personally would benefit from it. And you see people push others out with arguments like this, it's not a theoretical thing. (I'm not saying the original commenter is doing so, but explaining why I read the comment as negatively as I did)

detaro 7y ago

The comment ghaff replied to said "If you don't have the desire to do this after work you probably shouldn't even be in the field". If people that do not want to do it shouldn't be in the field, it's pretty damn close to a requirement.

yesenadam 7y ago
Well, I guess it's just reading the comment two entirely different ways. The way I read it, it sounds like someone who loves programming, not being able to imagine how you would never want to program outside work–not 24 hours a day, but never at all. You know, for the fun of it. You make it sound like the guy is your boss, making it a requirement for employment that people do programming they don't want to do outside work hours. The guy said "probably" and "is how I look at it", but that wasn't enough–the words are still treated like he'd said "definitely" and "I'd make this a legal requirement" or something. Ah anyway.
- detaro 7y ago
  Things don't have to be legal requirements to effectively be requirements. I'd hate to be considered not fit for tech by my coworkers, my boss, a potential employer, ... because of how I like to spend my free time, and if that sentiment is common it is a problem for people not fitting that expectation. Which I think is be bad, even if I personally would benefit from it. And you see people push others out with arguments like this, it's not a theoretical thing. (I'm not saying the original commenter is doing so, but explaining why I read the comment as negatively as I did)