|
Stereotypes change all the time. In my first job after completing my studies, those I worked with were of a kind you never see today. You didn't see that kind twenty years ago. And those from the start of the millennium ... They are no longer around. Well, maybe physically, but their ways have changed very significantly.
Those coming out of the universities today, well, they are not really my kind. They make me want to rather go on a mountain trip.
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't sure how to answer. I could see 2 possible approaches:
- Answer based on software developers that I have met
- Answer based on how likely I am to use those terms if somebody asked me "What is a software developer like?"
I went with the 2nd option. So for example, the question about good looking, I chose 1. Because although I may know software developers that are good looking, I would never use that to describe a generic software developer.
I only mention this as I expect the results to be quite skewed based on interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: the results to be quite skewed based on interpretation
That's kind of the point. How do we see ourselves? Not "how do we think others think about how we think about ourselves"
I don't believe there is "a" software developer persona. I do, however, think that a certain type of person is attracted to software development. And a certain type that sticks to it. And it's got nothing to do with how well you dress or how good you are cracking a joke.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: think that a certain type of person is attracted to software development. And a certain type that sticks to it.
There's a term for it, you know. It's masochists.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
4
modified 11-Apr-22 11:32am.
|
|
|
|
|
The developers I know and I've worked with were mostly none of those.
I've rarely seen software that made me go "wow, this developer really knew how to solve problems!" or "wow, such easy to follow logic!"
It was more like "wtf was this guy thinking!?  "
1000-line functions, swallowing errors at the lowest level, keeping static state shared across forms, declaring a specific class for each usage of a generic class...
I've even worked on a service that somehow broke future features in another service (it periodically set "unknown" (or new) database fields to NULL).
Sure I've worked with some good developers as well, but they're outnumbered.
Some were good problem solvers, some were good communicators, smart, some looked good, dressed nice, were outgoing.
You may even say we're just like regular people 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: You may even say we're just like regular people
Crazy, right.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and some of us are excellent problem solvers, too. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I've had the opportunity many times to speak to companies about the Developer psyche and while I have many years of observation and experience, I often wonder "how does everyone else in our wonderful, dysfunctional, stressed out, misunderstood, World Changers think of themselves?"
There's a special connection that happens when you can geek out, deep, deep down, with another person who shares an obsessive passion, whether it's software development, Marvel comics, cooking or whatever it is that you do. We're an odd breed, but a breed endlessly striving to learn and master, and I think I love that more than anything else about who we are as software developers.
So I wanted to hear from you. How do we, collectively, see ourselves in 2022?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
It depends almost entirely on how long you've been a programmer, and *when* you started as a programmer.
Largely, people like me, that started in the 70's and are still doing it, are cynical, jaded, and distrusting of change that is made simply because management wants to implement the newest magical library or framework. It's not that change is necessarily bad - it's that unbridled acceptance of cutting edge stuff can often cause more problems than it solves.
I've been programming since the late 70's, and the programmer experience today is nothing like what it was "back in the day".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: the programmer experience today is nothing like what it was "back in the day"
You and I predate the Internet, John. I remember people I worked with at WPAFB (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) talking about connecting computers to the ARPANET, its predecessor.
The programming experience is indeed different. Remember line-oriented text editors (like DEC's TECO)? And debugging without a debugger?
There are relatively few things I miss from that time. I liked "programming in the small" on microprocessors like the 8085 and Z80. There was a challenge to accomplish interesting things with so few resources.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: I liked "programming in the small" on microprocessors like the 8085 and Z80. There was a challenge to accomplish interesting things with so few resources.
Embedded is there for you. 6 kB of RAM on a 40 Mhz processor may seem a lot but they aren't when you're piloting a 40 kilosample Space Vector Modulation engine and communicating with a master unit at the same time.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
