2 ms·
I don't think so. Say you have a relatively simple website that you would like to have implemented. Would you like to hire an unskilled $10/h web worker, or wou
by Udo 13y ago
I don't think so. Say you have a relatively simple website that you would like to have implemented. Would you like to hire an unskilled $10/h web worker, or would you rather pay a $100/h dev to do it in a fraction of the time, and do it right? The OP was complaining about quality, wasn't he? And why wouldn't someone advertising their services in the HN Freelance thread not do a small project?
- namdnay 13y agoWhat I meant was that the scale is not linear. Certain tasks take nearly the same amount of time whether you're a rockstar or a standard developer. Would there be any point hiring Ferrari F1's lead pit stop technician to change the tyres on your Prius? Maybe you can get someone to do it good enough for three days at 10/h, whereas the other guy would have taken "only" an afternoon at 100/h. 240 vs 400 total.
- Udo 13y ago> Maybe you can get someone to do it good enough for three days at 10/h, whereas the other guy would have taken "only" an afternoon at 100/h. 240 vs 400 total. Again, the OP was complaining about quality. The difference is not just that the better developer gets it done in less time, it's also a better product in the end. Even on simple tasks, the better developer can serve as a consultant and help the customer make sound decisions about the project, whereas the stereotypical el-cheapo web dude will be struggling just to keep up with the customer's requirements. >Would there be any point hiring Ferrari F1's lead pit stop technician to change the tyres on your Prius? If the F1 pro explicitly advertises that he would like to change Prius tires, I'd rather hire that guy. Besides, this is about building stuff, not performing repetitive maintenance tasks.