3 ms·
> IMO what makes a great programmer is leverage and leadership. It doesn't really matter if you're a rockstar "10x" etc., what matters is how your work empowers
by ctvo 3y ago
> IMO what makes a great programmer is leverage and leadership. It doesn't really matter if you're a rockstar "10x" etc., what matters is how your work empowers others. Nobody is programming in a vacuum.
Nah. There are those types of folks, but there are other folks who are clearly above the rest in terms of technical ability. See John Carmack, Sanfilippo (of Redis fame), 100s of others. Or heck even folks who deeply understand the entire stack like Casey Muratori.
To act like there aren't folks who are "rockstars" or simply better software engineers, and at some point it boils down to soft skills, impact and leverage is corporate bullshit. There ARE people who are simply more technically gifted.
The OP didn’t ask about how to become a staff engineer, they asked how to become a great programmer. Those are not the same thing.
- binary132 3y agoand why have you heard of them?
- subtra3t 3y agoThis. If the personalities you mentioned didn't have the soft skills GP was talking about, you wouldn't even know of their existence. Sheer technical ability alone is not enough to be a great programmer. If you don't know how to properly communicate with others you are useless to your employer.
- programjames 3y agoYou're not making any sense to me. How did you get from "not famous" to "must not being a great programmer"?
- in9 3y agoThey are rockstarts because they have technical skills AND soft skills. Sure, John Carmack was a technical beast when it came to computer graphics. But one can't work for Facebook/Meta from 2013 to 2019 (and as a consultant until 2022) without soft skills.
- ctvo 3y agoJohn Carmack can have all the soft skills in the world. If he wasn't technically credible, it does not matter. This topic is about how to get that level of technical proficiency, how to become a great programmer. Jumping in and telling folks to be a great communicator or tech lead instead is not the way to become a great programmer. That's the way to become a great staff engineer. They're not the same things.
- binary132 3y agoThe point is that Carmack's work was extremely influential. That wouldn't have been true if he wasn't technically great, but technically great work can fail to have any influence whatsoever. Which is greater?
- dev_0 3y ago[dead]
- programjames 3y agoYou keep repeating the same idea: they're a great programmer because they're influential. You seem to be missing the point everyone else is trying to make: being a great programmer has nothing to do with being influential. Lisp is a great programming language, yet very few people use it. C++ and Javascript? Practically viruses, but every browser relies on them. Yes, it's true that many great programmers are also highly influential. But Linus was a git (his word, not mine). He isn't influential because of soft skills, it's because he was already a great programmer.
- binary132 3y agoLisp was and still is extremely influential. I didn't say anything about soft skills either. Leadership can be highly technical.
- ctvo 3y agoBecause we’ve seen the technical artifacts? For example, they released their work open source and we saw the quality. What’s your point here? Redis, when released, was a single person effort, for example.