3 ms·

Does anyone else think that this article is in poor form? On the perils of describing yourself as a programmer: If you're hiring someone to provide a specific

Does anyone else think that this article is in poor form? On the perils of describing yourself as a programmer: If you're hiring someone to provide a specific skill set (programmer) you want them to be good at programming. Would you hire an accountant if they didn't know accounting? Should lawyers not describe themselves as lawyers? Doctors as doctors? On the perils of selling yourself as an expert in a certain technology: I spend a fair amount of my time learning about the specific technologies I use. I've been doing this for a while and I don't know everything about sql, postgres, mysql, mongodb, javascript, html, css, ruby, rails, unix, chef, capistrano. But I've put thousands of hours into these things and the tools themselves took thousands of hours to create. Either I'm really bad at learning, or there is a lot to learn there and that information makes me more valuable to potential/current companies. Sure, there is a baseline level of skill you can achieve in programming where you can not suck at most stuff but there is still a lot of valuable information that you don't know if you just half assed your way through a Beginning Ruby on Rails book.

dpritchett 15y ago
You're letting other people determine your worth using their limited domain vocabulary and their suboptimal pattern matching abilities. A .NET programmer is a highly paid commodity, but a commodity all the same. A high-tech value creator who thinks and talks in terms of profit drivers and cost sinks is not going to ever be a commodity. Rather than striving to be the top of your class (e.g. Ruby devops guys, which is something HR can use a standardized pay scale for) you can strive to be unique in a one-person class that is more immediately profitable and scalable than a commodity programmer.
- ryanto 15y ago
  what? your last: - 'you can strive to be unique in a one-person class that is more immediately profitable and scalable than a commodity programmer.' seriously? if this guy wants to become an expert in the technologies he mentioned then why is that so wrong? if he enjoys programming and has the drive to get to the top then he should absolutely go for it. smart employers are going to appreciate and see value in someone that has spent thousands of hours coding.
  - dpritchett 15y ago
    Think back to the now-wealthy Googler who wrote the code that 97% of $BILLIONS in revenue passes through. Do you think that person introduces him/herself as "C++ programmer with 10+ years of industry experience"? You'll get better work on better terms if you focus on results rather than tools, even if your technical skillset is fundamentally the same as another dev with a poorer sales pitch. You're finding the best mutually beneficial business arrangements out there rather than just pursuing a predefined career track. Edit: Mastery is its own reward. If you want to become an expert at a particular corner of technology, go ahead. Just remember to explain your work to others in terms that aren't unnecessarily limiting.
    - scottschulthess 15y ago
      Say that person leaves google and spends all his/her money. What jobs do you think that person will be most qualified to apply to next? Senior C++ Programmer jobs. And what do you think they'll have to prove to potential employers? That they are capable of writing lots of C++.
      - dpritchett 15y ago
        You're overlooking the vast network of powerful Xoogler/VC/founder contacts this guy has surely developed in the past decade. He's also likely picked up world class experience in ecommerce, advertising, billing, and infrastructure scaling at Google. Commodity programming is an inefficient use of this person's time and luckily he will be known and respected by enough business leaders to be able to carve out a more valuable (and again, mutually beneficial) arrangement somewhere in the Valley. This job may involve C++ but it won't be as generic as you described. Think Paul and Bret at FriendFeed. "Python Programmers" was not their $50 million value proposition.
patio11 15y ago
Reprising a comment of mine from earlier: the actual work performed by most lawyers is letter-writing at $X00 an hour. No lawyer describes themselves as a "professional letter-writer" or "professional letter-writer specializing in Mostly Empty Threats." When "programmer" starts showing up with lawyer and doctor on "high status occupations used as the canonical examples of professional jobs since you were three years old" then programmers should definitely start describing themselves as programmers to anyone who will listen.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- scottschulthess 15y ago
  How about a surgeon? Their actual core competency is performing surgery. Should they not describe themselves as Surgeons? Edit: Are accountants high status? I'm not sure. They are generally regarded as making a fair bit of money but they are boring. Probably a bit more high status than a programmer, perhaps. But I wouldn't suggest to my accountant friends that they stop selling themselves as experts at accounting. And anyways, high status = social status, and how is that relevant to any of your points? Social status is mostly useful for when you're trying to get laid (because that's mostly when you are trying to impress people) or prove something to your parents. We, as programmers, still get paid very well and are valued by many many companies. The lack "high status" thing in comparison to doctors and lawyers is just because: A) Laywers and doctors generally make more money. A lot of lawyers and doctors make over 200K. Programmers, not so much. B) Laywers and doctors are almost certainly better educated than programmers. This education is validates a person in lots of ways, in that you are automatically learned about a variety of topics with which to converse with at parties, and that you are smart enough not only to perform as a lawyer/doctor but to achieve the level of education necessary to do so (unlike programming, where you only need to be good at your job and not necessarily good at 6+ years of higher ed). C) The laywer and doctor professions have been around longer and are therefore safer. Doctors are the most ancient and historically valuable professions. Laywers, not nearly as much so, but for the past few hundred years they have emerged as a staple profession. I like law a lot but I would devalue lawyers over doctors a bunch. D) It's harder to become a lawyer/doctor than a programmer, so it's a bigger achievement. E) The jobs generally require more social skills than working with computers. Programmers will probably never be a high status job because of the above reasons. But that doesn't really affect your argument, which is describing how you should sell yourself to potential employers. I'd like to reiterate that I'd prefer to well rounded people who are good at programming and specifically good at our tech stack. That's the ideal. Take classic ASP.NET programmer and tell him to write a complex Ruby on Rails project and watch him flounder for months no matter how good he was at ASP.NET. There's just a lot to learn. Now, for someone who is more seasoned, used to unix, used to working with actual HTML+CSS+Javascript (instead of .net controls) used to writing tests, used to dynamic languages, that person will adjust fast, but not everyone will.

dpritchett 15y ago

You're letting other people determine your worth using their limited domain vocabulary and their suboptimal pattern matching abilities. A .NET programmer is a highly paid commodity, but a commodity all the same. A high-tech value creator who thinks and talks in terms of profit drivers and cost sinks is not going to ever be a commodity. Rather than striving to be the top of your class (e.g. Ruby devops guys, which is something HR can use a standardized pay scale for) you can strive to be unique in a one-person class that is more immediately profitable and scalable than a commodity programmer.

ryanto 15y ago
what? your last: - 'you can strive to be unique in a one-person class that is more immediately profitable and scalable than a commodity programmer.' seriously? if this guy wants to become an expert in the technologies he mentioned then why is that so wrong? if he enjoys programming and has the drive to get to the top then he should absolutely go for it. smart employers are going to appreciate and see value in someone that has spent thousands of hours coding.
- dpritchett 15y ago
  Think back to the now-wealthy Googler who wrote the code that 97% of $BILLIONS in revenue passes through. Do you think that person introduces him/herself as "C++ programmer with 10+ years of industry experience"? You'll get better work on better terms if you focus on results rather than tools, even if your technical skillset is fundamentally the same as another dev with a poorer sales pitch. You're finding the best mutually beneficial business arrangements out there rather than just pursuing a predefined career track. Edit: Mastery is its own reward. If you want to become an expert at a particular corner of technology, go ahead. Just remember to explain your work to others in terms that aren't unnecessarily limiting.
  - scottschulthess 15y ago
    Say that person leaves google and spends all his/her money. What jobs do you think that person will be most qualified to apply to next? Senior C++ Programmer jobs. And what do you think they'll have to prove to potential employers? That they are capable of writing lots of C++.
    - dpritchett 15y ago
      You're overlooking the vast network of powerful Xoogler/VC/founder contacts this guy has surely developed in the past decade. He's also likely picked up world class experience in ecommerce, advertising, billing, and infrastructure scaling at Google. Commodity programming is an inefficient use of this person's time and luckily he will be known and respected by enough business leaders to be able to carve out a more valuable (and again, mutually beneficial) arrangement somewhere in the Valley. This job may involve C++ but it won't be as generic as you described. Think Paul and Bret at FriendFeed. "Python Programmers" was not their $50 million value proposition.

patio11 15y ago

Reprising a comment of mine from earlier: the actual work performed by most lawyers is letter-writing at $X00 an hour. No lawyer describes themselves as a "professional letter-writer" or "professional letter-writer specializing in Mostly Empty Threats." When "programmer" starts showing up with lawyer and doctor on "high status occupations used as the canonical examples of professional jobs since you were three years old" then programmers should definitely start describing themselves as programmers to anyone who will listen.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
scottschulthess 15y ago
How about a surgeon? Their actual core competency is performing surgery. Should they not describe themselves as Surgeons? Edit: Are accountants high status? I'm not sure. They are generally regarded as making a fair bit of money but they are boring. Probably a bit more high status than a programmer, perhaps. But I wouldn't suggest to my accountant friends that they stop selling themselves as experts at accounting. And anyways, high status = social status, and how is that relevant to any of your points? Social status is mostly useful for when you're trying to get laid (because that's mostly when you are trying to impress people) or prove something to your parents. We, as programmers, still get paid very well and are valued by many many companies. The lack "high status" thing in comparison to doctors and lawyers is just because: A) Laywers and doctors generally make more money. A lot of lawyers and doctors make over 200K. Programmers, not so much. B) Laywers and doctors are almost certainly better educated than programmers. This education is validates a person in lots of ways, in that you are automatically learned about a variety of topics with which to converse with at parties, and that you are smart enough not only to perform as a lawyer/doctor but to achieve the level of education necessary to do so (unlike programming, where you only need to be good at your job and not necessarily good at 6+ years of higher ed). C) The laywer and doctor professions have been around longer and are therefore safer. Doctors are the most ancient and historically valuable professions. Laywers, not nearly as much so, but for the past few hundred years they have emerged as a staple profession. I like law a lot but I would devalue lawyers over doctors a bunch. D) It's harder to become a lawyer/doctor than a programmer, so it's a bigger achievement. E) The jobs generally require more social skills than working with computers. Programmers will probably never be a high status job because of the above reasons. But that doesn't really affect your argument, which is describing how you should sell yourself to potential employers. I'd like to reiterate that I'd prefer to well rounded people who are good at programming and specifically good at our tech stack. That's the ideal. Take classic ASP.NET programmer and tell him to write a complex Ruby on Rails project and watch him flounder for months no matter how good he was at ASP.NET. There's just a lot to learn. Now, for someone who is more seasoned, used to unix, used to working with actual HTML+CSS+Javascript (instead of .net controls) used to writing tests, used to dynamic languages, that person will adjust fast, but not everyone will.