4 ms·

The blogger explicitly quotes PG as saying "In practice what happens is that the business guys choose people they think are good programmers (it says here on h

The blogger explicitly quotes PG as saying "In practice what happens is that the business guys choose people they think are good programmers (it says here on his resume that he’s a Microsoft Certified Developer) but who aren’t. Then they’re mystified to find that their startup lumbers along like a World War II bomber while their competitors scream past like jet fighters. This kind of startup is in the same position as a big company, but without the advantages. So how do you pick good programmers if you’re not a programmer? I don’t think there’s an answer. I was about to say you’d have to find a good programmer to help you hire people. But if you can’t recognize good programmers, how would you even do that?” And then goes on to say he disagrees with PG and then provides some "indicators" that business guys can use to guide their search . The thing is, a "business guy" is in no shape to judge any of these "indicators" accurately even if we grant that these are valid (which I don't). . How would this hypothetical business guy recognize "passion for programming" (one of the "indicators" for recognizing programming excellence the author mentions)? Let us see what he says "Good programmers will have a tendency to talk your ear off about some technical detail of what they’re working on (but while clearly believing, sincerely, that what they’re talking about is really worth talking about). Some people might see that as maladapted social skills (which it is), but if you want to recognise a good developer, this passion for what they’re doing at the expense of social smoothness is a very strong indicator. Can you get this guy to excitedly chat up a technology that he’s using, for a whole half hour, without losing steam? Then you might be onto a winner." Yeah right!!! This reminds me of some managers I know who'd make these kinds of judgments and reward the most technically inept members of the team because they "excitedly talk your ears off". Most of the talk would be technically incoherent but how would they know? all they detect is the "passion". The rest of the "indicators" are similarly flawed. PS the comments are hilarious too. I particularly liked "The above list is excellent (and it describes me perfectly). " :-D

swombat 18y ago
None of those indicators were meant to be taken in isolation. Each of them, by itself, means nothing. Taken altogether, they are helpful because they allow someone with little technical expertise to at least have a snowflake's chance in hell of recognising programing talent. If someone is enthusiastic, has a broad technical skill set, has been programming since before uni, loves to talk about the latest bit of technology he's picked up, is articulate, smart, learns technical stuff by himself, and has a tendency to work on side projects (rather than having all his experience on the CV), then they're far more likely to be a good programmer than not. Remember, a business guy is effectively flying blind. I can sit with someone for 15 minutes and tell you whether they're a good hacker or not without having asked a single technical question, but someone with no technical skills cannot do that - nor can they figure out how to recognise someone like me to ask me to do it for them. They'll get fooled by certification-laden "software architects" who haven't written a line of code in years and will happily help them hire a football team's worth of mediocre programming talent. I put together this list over a year ago to help non-technical people in this situation, and others must have found it useful, since over time it's accrued some 300'000 visitors and been linked to from pretty much everywhere. If you feel you can come up with a better list of indicators, please do so, I'll be the first to vote you up.
- plinkplonk 18y ago
  "at least have a snowflake's chance in hell of recognising programing talent" is a good frame for the article. Unfortunately the article, as written, seems to promise much more. "If you feel you can come up with a better list of indicators, please do so, I'll be the first to vote you up." I think the counter point maybe that there may not be any valid "indicators" at all that a completely "programming blind" business guy can use. At least this is how I read PG's original essay. I agree with that viewpoint based on my experience. Personally I found the essay (and the comments) amusing. It is just that I don't feel that this list of so called "indicators" have any practical utility, not because you didn't try your level best to come up with good indicators, but because the successful use of such indicators needs some programming experience (or trusted programmers for the business guy to delegate the decision to, who happen to be good at programming). In other words I completely agree with your assessment that "Remember, a business guy is effectively flying blind. I can sit with someone for 15 minutes and tell you whether they're a good hacker or not without having asked a single technical question, but someone with no technical skills cannot do that - nor can they figure out how to recognise someone like me to ask me to do it for them. They'll get fooled by certification-laden "software architects" who haven't written a line of code in years and will happily help them hire a football team's worth of mediocre programming talent." We disagree on what (if anything) can be done without a competent programmer in the loop somewhere, by a business guy with no programming experience using these(and possibly other) "indicators". peace,
  - swombat 18y ago
    Unfortunately the article, as written, seems to promise much more Well, I'll be sure to make the next version better. :-) This was posted 18 months ago (and it's the third time it makes the front page of HN). We disagree on what (if anything) can be done without a competent programmer in the loop somewhere I think these indicators can at least be used to whittle down the technical people that a business person knows down to a shortlist that is more likely to be good (rather than just have fancy titles). I'll grant you that the list can be improved, but I can't agree that the list is useless.
    - 18y ago

swombat 18y ago

None of those indicators were meant to be taken in isolation. Each of them, by itself, means nothing. Taken altogether, they are helpful because they allow someone with little technical expertise to at least have a snowflake's chance in hell of recognising programing talent. If someone is enthusiastic, has a broad technical skill set, has been programming since before uni, loves to talk about the latest bit of technology he's picked up, is articulate, smart, learns technical stuff by himself, and has a tendency to work on side projects (rather than having all his experience on the CV), then they're far more likely to be a good programmer than not. Remember, a business guy is effectively flying blind. I can sit with someone for 15 minutes and tell you whether they're a good hacker or not without having asked a single technical question, but someone with no technical skills cannot do that - nor can they figure out how to recognise someone like me to ask me to do it for them. They'll get fooled by certification-laden "software architects" who haven't written a line of code in years and will happily help them hire a football team's worth of mediocre programming talent. I put together this list over a year ago to help non-technical people in this situation, and others must have found it useful, since over time it's accrued some 300'000 visitors and been linked to from pretty much everywhere. If you feel you can come up with a better list of indicators, please do so, I'll be the first to vote you up.

plinkplonk 18y ago
"at least have a snowflake's chance in hell of recognising programing talent" is a good frame for the article. Unfortunately the article, as written, seems to promise much more. "If you feel you can come up with a better list of indicators, please do so, I'll be the first to vote you up." I think the counter point maybe that there may not be any valid "indicators" at all that a completely "programming blind" business guy can use. At least this is how I read PG's original essay. I agree with that viewpoint based on my experience. Personally I found the essay (and the comments) amusing. It is just that I don't feel that this list of so called "indicators" have any practical utility, not because you didn't try your level best to come up with good indicators, but because the successful use of such indicators needs some programming experience (or trusted programmers for the business guy to delegate the decision to, who happen to be good at programming). In other words I completely agree with your assessment that "Remember, a business guy is effectively flying blind. I can sit with someone for 15 minutes and tell you whether they're a good hacker or not without having asked a single technical question, but someone with no technical skills cannot do that - nor can they figure out how to recognise someone like me to ask me to do it for them. They'll get fooled by certification-laden "software architects" who haven't written a line of code in years and will happily help them hire a football team's worth of mediocre programming talent." We disagree on what (if anything) can be done without a competent programmer in the loop somewhere, by a business guy with no programming experience using these(and possibly other) "indicators". peace,
- swombat 18y ago
  Unfortunately the article, as written, seems to promise much more Well, I'll be sure to make the next version better. :-) This was posted 18 months ago (and it's the third time it makes the front page of HN). We disagree on what (if anything) can be done without a competent programmer in the loop somewhere I think these indicators can at least be used to whittle down the technical people that a business person knows down to a shortlist that is more likely to be good (rather than just have fancy titles). I'll grant you that the list can be improved, but I can't agree that the list is useless.
  - 18y ago