4 ms·

The criteria is not meant to be a bill of rights. Just quasi funny.

• swombat 18y ago
  Well, I have to say that the comic aspect did not get through to me. If you read your intro: I recently read this post at readwriteweb called Top 10 Traits of a Rockstar Software Engineer. It got me thinking, those were important traits to be a good programmer, but here some were surefire traits of a bad programmer. That doesn't read like an intro to a humorous article. Then, when you go into the points themselves, they're not all that funny. For example, point number 7: 7) Can navigate office politics easily Unlike their tongue tied good programmer colleagues, many of the bad programmers have skills in various areas not directly related to programming. It is an important skill to cultivate as it helps them keep their job in the first place. That could have been written in a humorous style, by exaggerating things and making it obvious that you're not making a serious argument. Instead, it feels like you're seriously arguing that having decent social skills is a trait of bad programmers. If you made outrageous claims like "no self-respecting programmer will look in the eyes of, let alone talk to, a colleague," then it would be obvious that you're exaggerating... to me it read like a serious argument, not like a joke. So from a practical point of view, I didn't find the article useful, and the humour didn't get through to me (and, apparently, to others, since they didn't vote it up). Hopefully this comment helps you with the next one :-)