3 ms·

Now, we have assumed we are talking about great developers. It is true that sometimes it is difficult to tell one from the other, if you are a manager and you

Now, we have assumed we are talking about great developers. It is true that sometimes it is difficult to tell one from the other, if you are a manager and you squint your eyes a little bit. Sometimes mediocre developer masking himself as a great developer is able to create a distortion field when he never finishes anything and relies on help from others to achieve his perceived fantastic output. No, we are not talking about that kind of person. What I mean is a person that is truly great developer. The organizations will frequently try to make good use of this person. One strategy is to get that developer to work on green-field projects only. He will design/write the code but once it is in prod it is going to be outsourced to another team and the star developer moves to another exciting project. Another strategy is to offload as much non-critical work as possible. Junior developers to write to spec? Testers? "Devops" engineers (as much as I hate that term)? These are all possible way to keep the perceived star developer with only hardest problems. Now, I don't say it is a good practice -- it is just something I have noticed over the years. Good developers have much more say in what they are going to be working on and in what capacity and this means taking interesting tasks and leaving mundane to more junior members.

BlargMcLarg 6y ago
> Now, we have assumed we are talking about great developers. I think you're the one making that assumption, not "we". I'm merely talking about the guys who are seen as pros, but might just be "good" or "above average". They gain the benefit of accumulating a lot of knowledge and experience, while someone with more talent might have made better use of it. I also believe you're assuming a little much about organizations, especially in the direction "mediocre perceived as great". Often, it is also a great developer perceived as mediocre because they don't have the skills to sell themselves well. Considering many managers don't even have a technical background, let alone a developed one, and how many environments don't allow the great developer to shine without playing office politics, I highly question the idea of "organizations will find a way". Given what you said, despite the difference in perspective, what we are saying doesn't differ a lot. I just don't believe a developer who avoids politics and tends to hang around to do the dirty work in a large enterprise app can get very far, or at least leaves a lot up to fate (despite maybe having a ton of talent). Nor do I believe "plays office politics well" should be a requirement for someone to be seen as a great developer.
- loopz 6y ago
  I don't consider people holding orgs hostage as "great". It's a huge debt-inducing antipattern, leaving others to hold the bag.

BlargMcLarg 6y ago

> Now, we have assumed we are talking about great developers. I think you're the one making that assumption, not "we". I'm merely talking about the guys who are seen as pros, but might just be "good" or "above average". They gain the benefit of accumulating a lot of knowledge and experience, while someone with more talent might have made better use of it. I also believe you're assuming a little much about organizations, especially in the direction "mediocre perceived as great". Often, it is also a great developer perceived as mediocre because they don't have the skills to sell themselves well. Considering many managers don't even have a technical background, let alone a developed one, and how many environments don't allow the great developer to shine without playing office politics, I highly question the idea of "organizations will find a way". Given what you said, despite the difference in perspective, what we are saying doesn't differ a lot. I just don't believe a developer who avoids politics and tends to hang around to do the dirty work in a large enterprise app can get very far, or at least leaves a lot up to fate (despite maybe having a ton of talent). Nor do I believe "plays office politics well" should be a requirement for someone to be seen as a great developer.

loopz 6y ago
I don't consider people holding orgs hostage as "great". It's a huge debt-inducing antipattern, leaving others to hold the bag.