4 ms·

Programming isn't that hard, but the business side is? The scales have been lifted from my eyes! Next time a "business guy" wants me to implement his great new

Programming isn't that hard, but the business side is? The scales have been lifted from my eyes! Next time a "business guy" wants me to implement his great new idea for an iPhone app, I'll totally make it for him!

abstractbill 17y ago
I think what axod is saying (and I agree), is that being a random "business guy" who wants you to implement your great new idea is easy. But being a really great business guy, on the level of someone like Richard Branson, is really hard. And, unlike programming, which is "easy" to learn in the sense that there's a hell of a lot of resources that teach you how to do it, there simply is no way to learn how to be the next Branson.
- axod 17y ago
  Thanks ;) You put it far better than me.
- plinkplonk 17y ago
  " But being a really great business guy, on the level of someone like Richard Branson, is really hard." Well then, the analogy (for programming) should be to become someone like Ken Thompson . And that's equally hard (or harder). Being a really great X guy, is really hard, for most values of X.
  - axod 17y ago
    But being an awesome excellent programmer doesn't mean guaranteed success in any real measurable way. Maybe some recognition from peers, but certainly not in monetary terms. Begin an awesome excellent business guy does mean success in a measurable way.
    - plinkplonk 17y ago
      "But being an awesome excellent programmer doesn't mean success in any real measurable way." Being an awesome excellent violinist (say) doesn't mean success in any "measurable way" either. There is no absolute, objective ranking for violinist, but becoming an "awesome excellent" violinist is still just as hard or harder than becoming Richard Branson.
      - axod 17y ago
        Apples and Oranges. End users don't care if a program was written well or not. They care if it solves their problem. There are countless examples of horrible buggy badly written programs that are wildly successful. There aren't many examples of horrible bad violinists that are successful.
        plinkplonk 17y ago
        Your original statements were "being an awesome excellent programmer doesn't mean guaranteed success in any real measurable way. " and "Begin an awesome excellent business guy does mean success in a measurable way." When the argument was made that success has meanings beyond "how much money someone made" or needs an absolute scale of measurement to define it, you are now saying that software that is not well written can be successful, Sure, but by that logic then many businessmen get rich by luck, not by being "awesome excellent business guys". So ? Still doesn't affect the irrelevance of your original argument. There are godawful musicians who lip synch songs and can barely maintain pitch but are successful in terms of making money. You need to let go of thinking that your ideas of what "success" is, is somehow universally held or accepted. ( I am done with this thread. It isn't worth the time. )
    - keyist 17y ago
      "Being an awesome excellent business guy does mean success in a measurable way." You are committing the logical fallacy of converse accident, essentially saying: "All awesome excellent business guys I have heard of is are successful financially, therefore it is true that all excellent business guys are successful." Survivor bias comes into play here too -- you don't get to hear stories of those with the exact same set of skills and personality as other 'business greats' who went bankrupt. "Maybe some recognition from peers, but certainly not in monetary terms." You can measure success in ways other than money. A programmer can count the number of users who have benefitted from using their code. A violinist can count number of standing ovations at concerts. An athlete can count number of medals/trophies. A parent can count number of successful children content with life. Not everyone defines their success in terms of their net worth.
  - abstractbill 17y ago
    I take your point, but I would still assert there are more and better resources for learning how to be the next Ken Thompson than there are for learning how to be the next Richard Branson.

abstractbill 17y ago

I think what axod is saying (and I agree), is that being a random "business guy" who wants you to implement your great new idea is easy. But being a really great business guy, on the level of someone like Richard Branson, is really hard. And, unlike programming, which is "easy" to learn in the sense that there's a hell of a lot of resources that teach you how to do it, there simply is no way to learn how to be the next Branson.

axod 17y ago
Thanks ;) You put it far better than me.
plinkplonk 17y ago
" But being a really great business guy, on the level of someone like Richard Branson, is really hard." Well then, the analogy (for programming) should be to become someone like Ken Thompson . And that's equally hard (or harder). Being a really great X guy, is really hard, for most values of X.
- axod 17y ago
  But being an awesome excellent programmer doesn't mean guaranteed success in any real measurable way. Maybe some recognition from peers, but certainly not in monetary terms. Begin an awesome excellent business guy does mean success in a measurable way.
  - plinkplonk 17y ago
    "But being an awesome excellent programmer doesn't mean success in any real measurable way." Being an awesome excellent violinist (say) doesn't mean success in any "measurable way" either. There is no absolute, objective ranking for violinist, but becoming an "awesome excellent" violinist is still just as hard or harder than becoming Richard Branson.
    - axod 17y ago
      Apples and Oranges. End users don't care if a program was written well or not. They care if it solves their problem. There are countless examples of horrible buggy badly written programs that are wildly successful. There aren't many examples of horrible bad violinists that are successful.
      - plinkplonk 17y ago
        Your original statements were "being an awesome excellent programmer doesn't mean guaranteed success in any real measurable way. " and "Begin an awesome excellent business guy does mean success in a measurable way." When the argument was made that success has meanings beyond "how much money someone made" or needs an absolute scale of measurement to define it, you are now saying that software that is not well written can be successful, Sure, but by that logic then many businessmen get rich by luck, not by being "awesome excellent business guys". So ? Still doesn't affect the irrelevance of your original argument. There are godawful musicians who lip synch songs and can barely maintain pitch but are successful in terms of making money. You need to let go of thinking that your ideas of what "success" is, is somehow universally held or accepted. ( I am done with this thread. It isn't worth the time. )
  - keyist 17y ago
    "Being an awesome excellent business guy does mean success in a measurable way." You are committing the logical fallacy of converse accident, essentially saying: "All awesome excellent business guys I have heard of is are successful financially, therefore it is true that all excellent business guys are successful." Survivor bias comes into play here too -- you don't get to hear stories of those with the exact same set of skills and personality as other 'business greats' who went bankrupt. "Maybe some recognition from peers, but certainly not in monetary terms." You can measure success in ways other than money. A programmer can count the number of users who have benefitted from using their code. A violinist can count number of standing ovations at concerts. An athlete can count number of medals/trophies. A parent can count number of successful children content with life. Not everyone defines their success in terms of their net worth.
- abstractbill 17y ago
  I take your point, but I would still assert there are more and better resources for learning how to be the next Ken Thompson than there are for learning how to be the next Richard Branson.