4 ms·
Often enough, there is simply no need to have someone "imagine it better", because paying someone to get your spec done is enough. As the technical ability of
by ErrantX 13y ago
Often enough, there is simply no need to have someone "imagine it better", because paying someone to get your spec done is enough.
As the technical ability of the customer goes down, the input, and therefore the cost, of the developer goes up.
Of course, this falls apart when you get non-technical people hiring grunt coders...
But there is nothing bad about such programmers - they just fullfill a different market sector. And their code is likely just as good. What you pay the premium for is someone to manage the technical side rather than just do as their told.
- jorgeleo 13y ago"And their code is likely just as good" That is nice dream, but the big fallacy.
- ErrantX 13y agoOh nonsense. I charge a premium over some of my (business) friends because I work full stack plus project management. But those friends are just as competent, at the coding.
- StavrosK 13y agoI don't know about your or your friends' coding skills, so I can't comment. I see a huge difference in the code I write in my language of proficiency versus code my friends write in the same language (my friends are mainly scientists, so their code tends to be ad-hoc modelling to get to a specific point, then discarded). My code is much better architected, much more reusable, cleaner, and, if you're going to be using it in the long-term, it's going to be much, much cheaper. Not to sound arrogant, but I sometimes marvel at how easy it is to add more features or change features just because the code was written properly the first time around. This is what the client pays for, the years of experience that have taught me how to write clean, maintainable and extensible code. If you're going to throw the code away after your MVP, you obviously shouldn't care if the code is maintainable, but code written by inexperienced and experienced developers is nowhere near similar.
- wfunction 13y ago> My code is much better architected, much more reusable, cleaner, and, if you're going to be using it in the long-term, it's going to be much, much cheaper. I admire your humility.
- StavrosK 13y agoOh, sorry. Let me rephrase: > I don't know about your or your friends' coding skills, so I can't comment. I see a huge difference in the code my friends write in their language of proficiency versus code I write in the same language (I am mainly a scientist, so my code tends to be ad-hoc modelling to get to a specific point, then discarded). > Their code is much better architected, much more reusable, cleaner, and, if you're going to be using it in the long-term, it's going to be much, much cheaper. Not to sound arrogant, but they sometimes marvel at how easy it is to add more features or change features just because the code was written properly the first time around. > This is what the client pays for, the years of experience that have taught them how to write clean, maintainable and extensible code. If you're going to throw the code away after your MVP, you obviously shouldn't care if the code is maintainable, but code written by inexperienced and experienced developers is nowhere near similar. Better now?
- wfunction 13y ago> Not to sound arrogant, but they sometimes marvel ... Now it doesn't make sense.
- precisioncoder 13y agoI agree with you that a trained developer does produce higher quality code and even if more expensive does end up being better in the long run. However in terms of judging the quality of your own work it's important to keep in mind that everyone thinks they're above average. A random search found this related article. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57568186/everyone-thinks-they-are-above-average/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57568186/everyone-thinks...
- zuppy 13y ago