3 ms·

> "One of the things that I see among hardworking smart people is they somehow tend to use 'difficult work' as a yardstick to measure 'good work'. Difficult wor

by nickknw 15y ago

> "One of the things that I see among hardworking smart people is they somehow tend to use 'difficult work' as a yardstick to measure 'good work'. Difficult work need not necessarily be good work. Unfortunately if you fall for this, you will end up wasting a lot of time, effort and energy over years and at the end wonder why you are not as rich as someone who does has half the difficult work as you do." A connection just went off in my head; this sentiment is echoed in Sirlin's 'Playing to Win' series of posts. "I’ve never been to a tournament where there was a prize for the winner and another prize for the player who did many difficult moves." It's good advice. I mean, enjoy solving difficult problems, but it is important to recognize that it can be... self-indulgent sometimes. There certainly exist hard problems that are also good problems, but they are not measured with the same units.

kamaal 15y ago
I would like to explain this in more detail. Imagine a person is working to deliver a business application, a typical application with a OO language that interacts with a database. And he sort of uses the normal set of tools for the job. He uses a version control system, bug tracking/time tracking systems. He uses scripting to do data heavy lifting tasks, he learns SQL and learns to use various features of a RDBMS. He also learns techniques for medium level scalability(learns how to use cache etc). He learns to use the IDE, the API's. He begins to learn Unix in greater detail and how to use that for development and deployment. He learns how to test, write unit tests. He also learns best practices. He does regular code reviews. He learns the process of collecting requirements, delivering finished stuff. Talking to customers etc etc. All these things that I mentioned, have virtually very little to do with diving deep into Computer Science aspects. Yet this is the story of nearly every software shop out there. If a person can just focus on doing that stuff properly he can be a lot ahead of the regular crowd. And make real good money too. This also the place where you can get into project management and still have you handson going. Because there aren't major paradigm changes to this once you get used to them well. All you need to do is keep in touch with some latest stuff and you can really end up making a lot of money. And still continue to climb the corporate ladder, be a good management and have good control over technical stuff. Now image an another scenario. You join a major big web corp, they hire you to write difficult algorithm stuff. Sure your passion will help you learn. But compared to the first guy your opportunities to interact with business are so scanty you really will miss out the big money stuff. The same thing happens with start up's. Also you will no longer be the reap the management pie, you will always continue to write code. And the biggest problem with our society is management drives the value addition. You will just end up being a implementer in their hands, you won't end driving up much value and with that definition money too. Over the years you miss out on the whole ecosystem, and you just won't have flow to compete with your peers if you ever want to get back and compete with them. Also the the first kind of jobs have many low hanging fruits to make lot of money. Also about start up's like OP mentioned: The high-percentage outcome is you work really hard for the next couple of years, fail ingloriously, and then be jobless and looking to get into another startup. If you really wanted to get into a startup two years out of school, you could also just go work at a megacorp for the next two years, earn a bit of money, then take your warchest, domain knowledge, and contacts and found one. People have to understand, when you fail you loose time, and also the money which you had else made if you hadn't failed. Sure go for the funky job. But also understand the risks behind them. Not all start up's, Big web corps are going to help you be big. There are good enough cases where people have made it big working there. But there also good enough cases where people haven't. When everything is going smooth and as expected its all milk and honey, but if it doesn't you are really toast. I would say, Big corp jobs really are not as bad as they depicted to be. If you do the right stuff(Just do the bare minimum properly), you actually can be quite successful and go quite far both in your career and money wise. And most important as I said, just merely doing technically difficult job automatically won't imply both career and financial success.
- fennecfoxen 15y ago
  I don't think it's realistic for someone two years out of school to go found their own startup. It's also a mixed bag at your local Megacorp as to whether you'll be able to build the programming knowledge and domain knowledge that would assist you. I'll grant you superior contacts. I worked for a Megacorp briefly, but it was just a couple of internships: enough to get some real experience on the resume, open-ended and unsupervised enough that I could actually learn a thing or two... but if I'd gone to work for the group that wanted to hire me afterward it would have been a complete waste of my talent as I banged my head against a legacy codebase and dozens of layers of bureaucracy. Instead I went for a little startup, worked with some seriously skilled people, and learned what the heck I was doing... and if the place had fallen apart after a year or two, I'd still have been able to get a much better job than any of my alternatives at graduation. If you're straight out of college, don't worry much about the salary, or the size of the company -- just go for the team that you're going to learn from. It can be the difference between launching your career and running it into the ground.
  - kamaal 15y ago
    You have bought some important points. And they are quite valid. >>If you're straight out of college, don't worry much about the salary, or the size of the company -- just go for the team that you're going to learn from. It can be the difference between launching your career and running it into the ground. I would say a MegaCorp experience is important for quite many reasons apart from just programming. There N number of things that are as important as programming to your success. Which you can't really learn in start up's for all sorts of reasons. Initial MegaCorp experience and then followed by good start up work looks a little better to me.
dlo 15y ago
True, but when entering a new line of business, the ability to solve difficult problems is a competitive advantage that a small start-up can leverage against a large company. "Use difficulty as a guide not just in selecting the overall aim of your company, but also at decision points along the way. At Viaweb one of our rules of thumb was run upstairs. Suppose you are a little, nimble guy being chased by a big, fat, bully. You open a door and find yourself in a staircase. Do you go up or down? I say up. The bully can probably run downstairs as fast as you can. Going upstairs his bulk will be more of a disadvantage. Running upstairs is hard for you but even harder for him." Source: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
- kamaal 15y ago
  That wasn't point of the post, the point was mere doing technically difficult work and then assuming that will help you get that edge is often wrong. Or putting it the other way, you must do what it takes. The problem is few people take it as a gospel truth that if the problems you work on are difficult you've got win bigger than the guy working lesser difficult problems. This goes even further with some people who consider the only way to win big is to work with difficult problems. That is when people get it completely wrong.
Someone 15y ago
Not that I disagree with the statement, but chess tournaments typically have prices for the most beautiful game. For example, http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10961/616 http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10961/616 mentions a €500,- daily prize for such a game (in one of the strongest tournaments in the world)

by nickknw 15y ago

kamaal 15y ago

I would like to explain this in more detail. Imagine a person is working to deliver a business application, a typical application with a OO language that interacts with a database. And he sort of uses the normal set of tools for the job. He uses a version control system, bug tracking/time tracking systems. He uses scripting to do data heavy lifting tasks, he learns SQL and learns to use various features of a RDBMS. He also learns techniques for medium level scalability(learns how to use cache etc). He learns to use the IDE, the API's. He begins to learn Unix in greater detail and how to use that for development and deployment. He learns how to test, write unit tests. He also learns best practices. He does regular code reviews. He learns the process of collecting requirements, delivering finished stuff. Talking to customers etc etc. All these things that I mentioned, have virtually very little to do with diving deep into Computer Science aspects. Yet this is the story of nearly every software shop out there. If a person can just focus on doing that stuff properly he can be a lot ahead of the regular crowd. And make real good money too. This also the place where you can get into project management and still have you handson going. Because there aren't major paradigm changes to this once you get used to them well. All you need to do is keep in touch with some latest stuff and you can really end up making a lot of money. And still continue to climb the corporate ladder, be a good management and have good control over technical stuff. Now image an another scenario. You join a major big web corp, they hire you to write difficult algorithm stuff. Sure your passion will help you learn. But compared to the first guy your opportunities to interact with business are so scanty you really will miss out the big money stuff. The same thing happens with start up's. Also you will no longer be the reap the management pie, you will always continue to write code. And the biggest problem with our society is management drives the value addition. You will just end up being a implementer in their hands, you won't end driving up much value and with that definition money too. Over the years you miss out on the whole ecosystem, and you just won't have flow to compete with your peers if you ever want to get back and compete with them. Also the the first kind of jobs have many low hanging fruits to make lot of money. Also about start up's like OP mentioned: The high-percentage outcome is you work really hard for the next couple of years, fail ingloriously, and then be jobless and looking to get into another startup. If you really wanted to get into a startup two years out of school, you could also just go work at a megacorp for the next two years, earn a bit of money, then take your warchest, domain knowledge, and contacts and found one. People have to understand, when you fail you loose time, and also the money which you had else made if you hadn't failed. Sure go for the funky job. But also understand the risks behind them. Not all start up's, Big web corps are going to help you be big. There are good enough cases where people have made it big working there. But there also good enough cases where people haven't. When everything is going smooth and as expected its all milk and honey, but if it doesn't you are really toast. I would say, Big corp jobs really are not as bad as they depicted to be. If you do the right stuff(Just do the bare minimum properly), you actually can be quite successful and go quite far both in your career and money wise. And most important as I said, just merely doing technically difficult job automatically won't imply both career and financial success.

fennecfoxen 15y ago
I don't think it's realistic for someone two years out of school to go found their own startup. It's also a mixed bag at your local Megacorp as to whether you'll be able to build the programming knowledge and domain knowledge that would assist you. I'll grant you superior contacts. I worked for a Megacorp briefly, but it was just a couple of internships: enough to get some real experience on the resume, open-ended and unsupervised enough that I could actually learn a thing or two... but if I'd gone to work for the group that wanted to hire me afterward it would have been a complete waste of my talent as I banged my head against a legacy codebase and dozens of layers of bureaucracy. Instead I went for a little startup, worked with some seriously skilled people, and learned what the heck I was doing... and if the place had fallen apart after a year or two, I'd still have been able to get a much better job than any of my alternatives at graduation. If you're straight out of college, don't worry much about the salary, or the size of the company -- just go for the team that you're going to learn from. It can be the difference between launching your career and running it into the ground.
- kamaal 15y ago
  You have bought some important points. And they are quite valid. >>If you're straight out of college, don't worry much about the salary, or the size of the company -- just go for the team that you're going to learn from. It can be the difference between launching your career and running it into the ground. I would say a MegaCorp experience is important for quite many reasons apart from just programming. There N number of things that are as important as programming to your success. Which you can't really learn in start up's for all sorts of reasons. Initial MegaCorp experience and then followed by good start up work looks a little better to me.

dlo 15y ago

True, but when entering a new line of business, the ability to solve difficult problems is a competitive advantage that a small start-up can leverage against a large company. "Use difficulty as a guide not just in selecting the overall aim of your company, but also at decision points along the way. At Viaweb one of our rules of thumb was run upstairs. Suppose you are a little, nimble guy being chased by a big, fat, bully. You open a door and find yourself in a staircase. Do you go up or down? I say up. The bully can probably run downstairs as fast as you can. Going upstairs his bulk will be more of a disadvantage. Running upstairs is hard for you but even harder for him." Source: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html

kamaal 15y ago
That wasn't point of the post, the point was mere doing technically difficult work and then assuming that will help you get that edge is often wrong. Or putting it the other way, you must do what it takes. The problem is few people take it as a gospel truth that if the problems you work on are difficult you've got win bigger than the guy working lesser difficult problems. This goes even further with some people who consider the only way to win big is to work with difficult problems. That is when people get it completely wrong.

Someone 15y ago

Not that I disagree with the statement, but chess tournaments typically have prices for the most beautiful game. For example, http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10961/616 http://main.uschess.org/content/view/10961/616 mentions a €500,- daily prize for such a game (in one of the strongest tournaments in the world)