4 ms·

If you have two programmers, and one is "10x more productive" than the other in that he knows when to reuse or adapt other code, but there is a problem that act

by mvzink 15y ago

If you have two programmers, and one is "10x more productive" than the other in that he knows when to reuse or adapt other code, but there is a problem that actually does require writing code, which one will put out a more correct, reliable solution faster? I would guess that it would be the 10x more productive programmer, because he/she doesn't just know when to reuse or adapt other code, but also when to reuse or adapt algorithms, architectures, etc. or "solutions" generally. I'm annoyed that Cook is still undervaluing these programmers in this article by not explicitly mentioning solutions in general, but only "reusing code", which is just a special case of reusing solutions.

esrauch 15y ago
The '10x more productive' in this article was referring to people who reuse and adapt, you seem to have it backwards. You are infinitely more productive if you realize the problem is already solved. Not only is it faster, but it also isn't as likely to suffer from bugs. But I also think you are assigning to him a slightly different opinion than I understood it. It's not just 'This would be a good time to use Excel!" or "This would be a good time to use Library X!", it's "This codebase already has something that is slightly different; we can probably generalize that slightly and save a lot of headaches". He is talking about people who write code every day, but people who are better able to apply existing frameworks to the new problem instead of banging out something from scratch. Also with regards to your "still", this article is not new.
- mvzink 15y ago
  No, I don't have it backwards and that is indeed the kind of programmer he was talking about. I am only saying that the "This codebase already has something that is slightly different; we can probably generalize that slightly and save a lot of headaches" situation is just a special case of better, more adaptive problem solving that doesn't necessarily rely on the "codebase already [having] something that is slightly different". And I know the article is not new, the point of "still" is that the article seeks to address the undervaluation of these programmers, yet doesn't give them their full due. This is because most (if not all) of the same programmers who practice that special case of efficient problem solving also are capable of more generalized forms of efficient problem solving, and Cook doesn't mention this.
  - esrauch 15y ago
    > are capable of more generalized forms of efficient problem solving I still don't understand what you are trying to say. The entire point of the article is that "people who are capable of the more generalized form of efficient problem solving are more valuable". He's not saying that you never have to sit down and get your hands dirty and write something from scratch, or that the most efficient people never do that. You are agreeing with what he wrote and acting like he said the opposite.

by mvzink 15y ago

esrauch 15y ago

The '10x more productive' in this article was referring to people who reuse and adapt, you seem to have it backwards. You are infinitely more productive if you realize the problem is already solved. Not only is it faster, but it also isn't as likely to suffer from bugs. But I also think you are assigning to him a slightly different opinion than I understood it. It's not just 'This would be a good time to use Excel!" or "This would be a good time to use Library X!", it's "This codebase already has something that is slightly different; we can probably generalize that slightly and save a lot of headaches". He is talking about people who write code every day, but people who are better able to apply existing frameworks to the new problem instead of banging out something from scratch. Also with regards to your "still", this article is not new.

mvzink 15y ago
No, I don't have it backwards and that is indeed the kind of programmer he was talking about. I am only saying that the "This codebase already has something that is slightly different; we can probably generalize that slightly and save a lot of headaches" situation is just a special case of better, more adaptive problem solving that doesn't necessarily rely on the "codebase already [having] something that is slightly different". And I know the article is not new, the point of "still" is that the article seeks to address the undervaluation of these programmers, yet doesn't give them their full due. This is because most (if not all) of the same programmers who practice that special case of efficient problem solving also are capable of more generalized forms of efficient problem solving, and Cook doesn't mention this.
- esrauch 15y ago
  > are capable of more generalized forms of efficient problem solving I still don't understand what you are trying to say. The entire point of the article is that "people who are capable of the more generalized form of efficient problem solving are more valuable". He's not saying that you never have to sit down and get your hands dirty and write something from scratch, or that the most efficient people never do that. You are agreeing with what he wrote and acting like he said the opposite.