5 ms·
It is what it is, really. Some of my colleagues cringe at the thought of touching a computer either after hours or on the weekend. Others literally spend their
by jonny383 7y ago
It is what it is, really. Some of my colleagues cringe at the thought of touching a computer either after hours or on the weekend. Others literally spend their entire 16 awake-hours on computers (not necessarily just programming, but a large majority are doing technical side projects, etc).
Is there a difference in their work output? Absolutely there is, in my experience here. Contrary to my prior assumptions, it is actually the _die hard_ tech guys that
- Produce excellent work
- Produce a consistent amount of work over long periods
- Keep up to date with tech
- Don't really seem to suffer "burnout"
- Consistently improve their skills and progress their careers
- Have a high probability of being enthusiastic about a new project, technology or their work
Where as the ones who are "work-only" programmers (not always) tend to
- Produce excellent work in short bursts, and then average work the rest of the time
- Do not produce consistent amounts of work over long periods
- Not only struggle to keep up with tech, but actively _fight_ the idea of having to learn something new
- Have a high probability of going to management to discuss their "burnout" and take extra time off
- Seem to have one specialized skill set that neither improves nor gets worse - they just float around the same level
- Rarely show enthusiasm for a new project, technology of their work
People often refer to "burnout" in the context as a short term solution - but I honestly think that "burnout" as we know it is a result of someone who has already "checked out" or "lost the passion" for what they do (or perhaps, they never had it, and just went into this career for other reasons)
This seems really grim for the non _die hard_ people, so here's some positive traits I've seen in them that are usually lacking in the _die hard_ people.
- Typically have much better communication skills
- Usually better at reasoning for which technology to use in a project (ignore "language or framework of the week")
- Are better with customers and maintaining relations
- Provide more support to their colleagues
- Willingness to take on different kinds of tasks (no attitude of "that's not my job")
I think it's fair to say that balance is key between these very dynamic cultural traits we observe as programmers.
EDIT: formatting
- fsloth 7y agoIt's okay not to be passionate about new technologies. From CS point of view it's all turtles down and you can implement the same algorithms and datastructures on pretty much on any language. Being to enthused about new technology is my jaded eyes perhaps a negative trait. New is not always better. Better is better, and if it's better, then it's better - not just because it's new. From business point of view caring actually about the domain after you know how to program is much more important than caring deeply about the implementation language or platform. Programs in the office are developed to help end users in their work. That's what matters - solving the end users problem and making their life more productive. Not doing it on the latest and greates language version.
- collyw 7y agoIn my anecdotal experience, the guy who did work related stuff in his spare time was an absolute nightmare to work with (but he was friends with the boss so safe to do whatever he liked). He seemed to think he was a lot better developer than what he actually was. He churned out a lot of small projects, but they never seemed of great quality and the question of "why?" came up a lot of the time (he developed an OCR reader to process student evaluation forms, rather than an online form). My other colleague who did tech related (but not work related) stuff in his spare time was knowledgable about a lot of stuff and a lot more pleasant to work with. He knew a lot of security related stuff that came in relevant when we thought we had been hacked.