Prestige of developers
in [Java Programming]
|
Prev: Ordering of hashtable keys
Next: Newbie again. "Java Keyboard input" is a failure as a google search. What isn't?
From: Lew on 17 Jul 2010 15:14 Stefan Ram wrote: > It seems to put developers in quite a prestigious company, > while there seems not be a reason for any pro-developer > bias, because it was not written with the intention to > evaluate the prestige of software development, but a whole > other question in mind. Well, I have a high opinion of at least one developer, so I rest secure in the knowledge that at least one respectable developer has a high opinion of me. -- Lew
From: Tom Anderson on 17 Jul 2010 19:46 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Stefan Ram wrote: > Are developers merely being regarded as ?code monkeys? in the > general population? Well, I just read this: > > ?Those who came up with more good ideas on Torrance's > tasks grew up to be entrepreneurs, inventors, college > presidents, authors, doctors, diplomats, and software > developers.? > > http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html > > It seems to put developers in quite a prestigious company, > while there seems not be a reason for any pro-developer > bias, because it was not written with the intention to > evaluate the prestige of software development, but a whole > other question in mind. Specifically, a question about creativity, and creativity in the sense of 'inventiveness' rather than 'artistic flair'. I imagine civillians think of us as inventive, certainly, and to that extent, not merely code monkeys in the way that bricklayers are brick monkeys. But really, if you want an answer to this question - about how the general population perceive programmers - then a newsgroup full of programmers is categorically the wrong place to ask it! tom -- And dear lord, its like peaches in a lacy napkin. -- James Dearden
From: Jim Janney on 17 Jul 2010 20:02 ram(a)zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes: > Are developers merely being regarded as »code monkeys« in the > general population? Well, I just read this: > > »Those who came up with more good ideas on Torrance's > tasks grew up to be entrepreneurs, inventors, college > presidents, authors, doctors, diplomats, and software > developers.« > > http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html > > It seems to put developers in quite a prestigious company, > while there seems not be a reason for any pro-developer > bias, because it was not written with the intention to > evaluate the prestige of software development, but a whole > other question in mind. That's a very mixed bag as far as social prestige goes. Nobody asks a college president "When are you going to get a real job?", but authors reportedly hear it pretty often. I don't know where developers fit into that. -- Jim Janney
From: Simon Brooke on 18 Jul 2010 04:48 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:45:26 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote: > Are developers merely being regarded as »code monkeys« in the > general population? Well, I just read this: > > »Those who came up with more good ideas on Torrance's tasks grew > up to be entrepreneurs, inventors, college presidents, authors, > doctors, diplomats, and software developers.« > > http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html > > It seems to put developers in quite a prestigious company, while there > seems not be a reason for any pro-developer bias, because it was not > written with the intention to evaluate the prestige of software > development, but a whole other question in mind. All geeks are not created equal. Thomas Brooks (no relation), in the one of the essays in his book 'The Mythical Man Month', reckons that the best software developers are of the order of 100 times as productive as the average - and this concurs with my experience having played this game for twenty-eight years. Of course, some software houses/IT departments treat and manage software people as if they were interchangeable, and, worse still, promote their best developers into management. But in shops where star developers are recognised, their status is very high indeed. But remember, you have to be one of those one-in-a-hundred. Most people who write software are not stars and do not perform like stars - and they don't deserve to be regarded or rewarded like stars (although you will find - I certainly do - that you perform better under some regimes of management than under others). -- ;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
From: EricF on 19 Jul 2010 00:13
In article <8aftfjF6u0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Simon Brooke <stillyet+nntp(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:45:26 +0000, Stefan Ram wrote: > >> Are developers merely being regarded as »code monkeys« in the >> general population? Well, I just read this: >> >> »Those who came up with more good ideas on Torrance's tasks grew >> up to be entrepreneurs, inventors, college presidents, authors, >> doctors, diplomats, and software developers.« >> >> http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html >> >> It seems to put developers in quite a prestigious company, while there >> seems not be a reason for any pro-developer bias, because it was not >> written with the intention to evaluate the prestige of software >> development, but a whole other question in mind. > >All geeks are not created equal. Thomas Brooks (no relation), in the one >of the essays in his book 'The Mythical Man Month', reckons that the best >software developers are of the order of 100 times as productive as the >average - and this concurs with my experience having played this game for >twenty-eight years. Of course, some software houses/IT departments treat >and manage software people as if they were interchangeable, and, worse >still, promote their best developers into management. But in shops where >star developers are recognised, their status is very high indeed. > >But remember, you have to be one of those one-in-a-hundred. Most people >who write software are not stars and do not perform like stars - and they >don't deserve to be regarded or rewarded like stars (although you will >find - I certainly do - that you perform better under some regimes of >management than under others). > You mean Frederick Brooks. He wrote the book. You're confusing him with your cousin Tom. Eric |