3 ms·

Incorrect, you must become a programmer (even if you are a CEO). The world is becoming more complex (multi dimensional) as well as more abstract (I.e. everythin

Incorrect, you must become a programmer (even if you are a CEO). The world is becoming more complex (multi dimensional) as well as more abstract (I.e. everything has an API), hence the only way to make decision in the future will be with data and with computational thinking. The CEO image and salary will be long gone (see what happens to banks, insurance companies, car companies). The same thing will happen to all other service aspects (e.g. law, medicine). And programmers are the one that would cause it.

warent 5y ago
FYI the article is talking about why you shouldn't choose programming as a career. It isn't saying you shouldn't learn programming. Executives, or at least some form of people managers, will always exist, because programmers are humans and humans cannot be programmed.
iwwr 5y ago
On the other hand, even tech companies reward particularly based on the number of people reporting to you rather than technical competence, smarts, acumen etc. That's because no matter how individually brilliant someone can be, what matters is the ability to direct resources, and that is roughly measured in the numbet of directs. Sure, there is a hierarchy of technically brilliant people: principals, advocates, ..., but their number is dwarfed by those that rise by having directs. In the end, a brilliant loner is more of a liability than a corporate schmooser with 100+ below him.
- streetcat1 5y ago
  So, I think that you are looking at the rear view mirror (as well as the article author). We are living in a world of zero cost compute / zero cost capital / zero cost media. The industries that can afford this kind of internal power grab are about to get distributed in the next 5 years (cars companies - gone, banks - gone, insurance companies - gone, commercial real estate - gone, media - gone). On the other hand, the ability of individual to get tractions for a valuable ideas is immense. So if we assume that the only services that a programmer get from a company can be rented outside of the company without the overhead of management / internal politics / etc, than there is no reason for a programmer to work in this old structure. The key point that should be clarified is that people still equate 10 programmers = 10 * 1 programmer, or 100 programmer = 100 * 1 programmer, and this equation is not correct.

warent 5y ago

FYI the article is talking about why you shouldn't choose programming as a career. It isn't saying you shouldn't learn programming. Executives, or at least some form of people managers, will always exist, because programmers are humans and humans cannot be programmed.

iwwr 5y ago

On the other hand, even tech companies reward particularly based on the number of people reporting to you rather than technical competence, smarts, acumen etc. That's because no matter how individually brilliant someone can be, what matters is the ability to direct resources, and that is roughly measured in the numbet of directs. Sure, there is a hierarchy of technically brilliant people: principals, advocates, ..., but their number is dwarfed by those that rise by having directs. In the end, a brilliant loner is more of a liability than a corporate schmooser with 100+ below him.

streetcat1 5y ago
So, I think that you are looking at the rear view mirror (as well as the article author). We are living in a world of zero cost compute / zero cost capital / zero cost media. The industries that can afford this kind of internal power grab are about to get distributed in the next 5 years (cars companies - gone, banks - gone, insurance companies - gone, commercial real estate - gone, media - gone). On the other hand, the ability of individual to get tractions for a valuable ideas is immense. So if we assume that the only services that a programmer get from a company can be rented outside of the company without the overhead of management / internal politics / etc, than there is no reason for a programmer to work in this old structure. The key point that should be clarified is that people still equate 10 programmers = 10 * 1 programmer, or 100 programmer = 100 * 1 programmer, and this equation is not correct.