|
It's also the first time I've expressed it that way, so it's a double first.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You just need an expert[^] to explain it.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes. A Real Programmer works 10-12 hours at their day job, picks up a bag of Cheeto's and a 12 pack of Red Bull on the way home, and then spends 6 or 7 hours working on an open source project of some sort. On the weekend, he puts in 14 hours on Saturday, and 12 on Sunday (his mom won't do his laundry, so he loses a couple hours; good thing the laundry's in the basement next to his computer desk).
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Totally agreed with balancing life and productivity. In the early career days, I used to bring work home but now once I'm out of the office, don't even think about work stuff. From what I see around (colleagues) those that have vested interests in what they do both at work and at home tends to spend more time to stay up current with changing technologies.
|
|
|
|
|
Leng Vang wrote: I used to bring work home but now once I'm out of the office, don't even think about work stuff.
Same here. Life is just more fun that way man.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my near thirty years experience as a strange pilgrim come late (post age 40) to the digital world, and programming, based on working in both small teams and in large companies (Adobe), I have not found one generality about character, behavior, temperament, intelligence, brilliance, etc., that applies to programmers.
That has contributed greatly to my enjoyment of whatever this wanderjahr was/is.
cheers, Bill
« There is only one difference between a madman and me. The madman thinks he is sane. I know I am mad. » Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
Do you need any help to turn it on?
nah, I know, I'll get my coat. 
Don't mind those people who say you're not HOT. At least you know you're COOL.
I'm not afraid of falling, I'm afraid of the sudden stop at the end of the fall! - Richard Andrew x64
|
|
|
|
|
Your answer can be found here 
»»» <small>Loading Signature</small> «««
· · · <small>Please Wait</small> · · ·
![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
ha ha, I like it. I got that comment often. 
|
|
|
|
|
At the end of the day, developers are people, and everyone is different and work in their own way. The way that works best for them.
I do a fair amount of geekery outside of work, but I also have interests that are non-geek related. I think it's healthy to have other interests, as it makes you a more rounded individual.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, agreed. I still now and then code for fun, but majority off hours spend building things. Working on finishing a basement and building a recumbent tadpole now.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to, but now I have way too many other interests. if something is really calling me to research, i'll get a book work with it for a hour or two in the late evening (really liking "D" lang).
I got some projects I could do for myself rattling around in my head, but can't justify taking that much time away of the wife and kids.
Maybe someday i'll get back to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. However, some developers just want to go fishing or golfing on their day off. Some will pick a book and learn a new language, new ideas, new paradigm... These are what I've observed that make the different between those that just work in tech and those that lead the tech.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're right.
I also think most of the commenters on this thread completely misunderstood what you asked. For those who did, note that he didn't state that the people programming outside of work weren't also programming at work. His question was more about whether people who *also* program at home, for fun, are more in tune with programming than people who switch off as soon as they leave the office, and only program for work.
But yes, all the best of us engage in recreational programming: programming is more than a job for us: it's a way of thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
You hit the nail square. Couldn't said it better myself. I have colleagues with some very sharp and some are okay. But the okay folks are kept going back to the other sharp for answers on the team. The only difference I've notice is that those sharp group spend more time off hours to understand the technology where the okay group seems to not care so much about technology and be there just for the pay check.
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen much the same thing... I think for the sharp ones, they job is because they like to do it, and it's easy to have that job, whereas the other ones learned it in order to do the job, which is a whole different viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. Hence I framed the question "Code for fun" as a hobby and not so much as just code outside of work. When one is doing a hobby no about of time or money matters. The passion for hobby is (for me anyway) addicting and as the old saying "practice makes for perfection" -- not sure that is true for coding, but did learn a lot from it.
modified 10-Oct-14 12:11pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You are conflating skill and interest.. those two things may meet.. but frequently do NOT.
In my life, I've met few truly great programmers.. and to date not one of the greats has been a coder outside of work. I DO see folks falling for the 'I code outside of work' machismo like its something to be proud of.. but to me its never translated to someone how is truly great at getting things done with a minimum of complexity, partitions modules based on logical precepts, and keeps things easy to maintain.
Those engineering type skills are severely lacking in most programmers.. which is why I keep seeing so many utter messes that must be dealt with.
The panacea of programming that most seek is contained in one word: rigor. Rigor is not based on hours/day.. its based on how you think and apply the lessons of engineering. Working tired actually DECREASES rigor..
Just my 2cents.
|
|
|
|
|
A very valid point. I have long advocated the use of robust engineering practices to build software (check out some of my tips / articles on here). Software is an engineering discipline, and rigour is at the heart of that discipline.
I have worked with many software developers, some good, some not so good. Some of the great ones however didn't have IT as their background. A couple had degrees in philosophy. This meant they could look at problems with a completely different perspective than your died-in-the-wool developer. They also weren't constrained by tradition or "what everyone else is doing".
Another great developer I have worked with left school and went straight into IT and eventually into software development. His depth of knowledge was unsurpassed.
A great developer therefore isn't necessarily someone who has an IT background or even IT qualifications. It's more about their attitude and how they approach solving a problem, and how well they understand the various tools, technologies and methodologies to solve those problems.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm also a musician. 
Lifelong interest in the arts..
Interest in philosphy.
I tend to agree!
|
|
|
|
|
I guess what I really meant to say was the difference between developers with passion versus developers as to hold a job. But I do agree with what you said, rigor with a passion.
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to agree.
Passion for programming is definitely not required. I wouldn't call myself passionate about programming.. Its what I do to make money..
But I AM passionate about QUALITY. And I bring that passion to whatever I do.. programming included.
Its why I always suspicious of folks who say they are passionate about programming. I can understand wanting to learn more.. and do things better.. but to me the goal is HOW I deliver things to others, and how many bugs I do/don't create in the process. And how easy it is to use what I deliver.
I saw a write up on another site talking about how Object Oriented Programming is a huge fail and needs to be gotten rid of.. the rant goes on for pages.. and its clear the poor fool completely misses the point. Bad software can be written in any language.. because its the level of rigor we do/don't bring to the table that defines our end product. Some languages make it easier to express that rigor in real terms.. but at the end of the day if I get a job at a company 99% of the time the choice of language is not mine.. which means the only thing I have control over is the processes and thinking required to make programs. That rigor part. That is the end I've been working to my entire life.. and why after 30+ years I create very few bugs and provide value to the organization I'm in..
What I'm always surprised by is how difficult it is to sell rigor to the folks I work with.. I'll get lip service.. but rarely real buy in for it.. and in my experience its a true differentiator...and also the reason so much crap is committed to code (i.e. a LACK of rigor).
|
|
|
|
|
Funny, I read that article, but only got pass about 3 paragraphs and I knew the author doesn't know what OOP really is, then I quit reading it. As for buying into rigor, we have a saying in the federal government research sector "You need to add a Dr. in front of your name before people will take you serious." I ran into that every day.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah.. I got further than you, about 3 pages.. before I decided he was ranting about something I don't consider a problem. I personally find OO helps me protect one portion of a larger system from another.. and partition a system reasonably for maintenance.. but I ALSO know what to avoid in OO so that complexity is reduced. To me.. O-O doesn't get in the way.. and is much better than structured programming (which I used in the 80s and early 90s).
The issue that author is worried about just isn't an issue. The REAL issue is there is no magic bullet to replace discipline and rigor in programming.. and management doesn't know how to create high quality because most management doesn't have the engineering experience to even know the real goals to create that (how many managers have I met that only were engineers for 5 years.. when in my experience you don't even achieve first level master until 7-10 years?).
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
