
“Nothing you can do impresses me” - luu
https://ginnabaker.wordpress.com/2014/12/06/nothing-you-can-do-impresses-me/
======
stevewepay
When I first came to Silicon Valley, I had a couple of senior engineers as my
mentors. The most important lesson I learned from them is that they were
extremely supportive. I had a couple of ideas for new features, and instead of
shooting them down and telling me why it wouldn't work, their responses were
always "Hmmm, sounds interesting. Why don't you spend some time on it and
let's see how it works out." When I did something dumb, they would point out
the mistakes after implementation, but never in a "I'm smarter than you" way.

Of course, since then I've had many jobs where the other engineers were always
hypercritical as this article points out. In this industry there certainly is
an undercurrent of everyone trying to prove how smart they are by showing why
everyone else is dumber than them.

However, I'll never forget my first mentors and I try to respond exactly as
they did, which is be supportive to any of the junior engineers that I mentor.
I always try to not say "no", even if I feel they are wrong, and I always
engage in a conversation. Even if I disagree with what they want to do, I'll
try give them the opportunity to prove me wrong (within reason) as opposed to
simply shutting them down with a curt "you're wrong, no."

~~~
sillysaurus3
It seems like being supportive is something everyone agrees is a great thing,
but few people actually do. Being supportive is just so much work, after all.
Much easier to think of ten ways to tear something down.

For evidence of how supportive tech communities are, take a look at what
happens when someone tries to show off their early projects:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747053](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747053)

Comments include "They're probably lying," "This is like a parent posting
their kindergartener's first crayon house-and-trees-and-sun drawings out into
blogs," etc. And most of those comments were heavily endorsed by this
community, judging by their overall position relative to sibling comments. So
if HN is a thermometer for how friendly tech is, apparently nice people are
rare.

Hopefully the culture will change, but that will take a lot of time.

(Now that I've posted this comment, I realize that it's not very supportive,
which is a little ironic. Maybe a post-it note on my monitor that says "Be
supportive!" would be a good reminder.)

~~~
bduerst
The internet phenomenon of simultaneously granting voice with anonymity has
definitely given rise to much more critical, negative discussion, which is
ultimately fruitless and detracts from community value.

Like you said, it takes work to be supportive, and if your voice isn't tied to
your reputation, many will forgo even attempting it.

That's not to say the workplace is the same though. Some people have figured
out that support begets support, and put forth the effort. Online though, it's
almost the tragedy of the commons, where users will take only what they want
out of a community without even thinking about contributing to it's value or
future.

~~~
sillysaurus3
True enough, but it may be one reason there are comparatively few women in
tech. People choose a career for themselves when they're years of work away
from being in any workplace. Hacker News is the closest thing that people will
get to knowing what it's like to work in tech.

Which is unfortunate, since HN is nothing like working in tech. Remember the
brogrammer phenomenon? At the time, it almost seemed like that was the
direction the industry might be headed. Luckily not.

~~~
jnbiche
>Which is unfortunate, since HN is nothing like working in tech.

Working with SV firms full of men in the 20s is exactly like this. My
colleagues are pretty much brogrammers, or overseas contractors (who are
similarly young, callous, arrogant, and emotionally...young).

And looking at other sectors of tech, things look pretty similar. What area of
tech do you work in that is nothing like HN in terms of this attitude?

(disclaimer: I actually really appreciate HN as a source of information, and
there's an impressive amount of expertise here, but as a social network, it's
depressing).

------
golemotron
This blog reminds me of something I heard in an interview with Dr. Roy
Baumeister. He pointed out that when he works with grad students he has to
actively criticize and knock down most of the ideas that his male students
have because they are full of testosterone and hubris and he has to actively
draw out his female students to build their confidence. He told some of his
grad students this years ago and they thought he was being sexist, but years
later when they (both male and female) got their own grad students they
noticed the same thing.

Baumeister is a psychologist who has done research in evolutionary psychology,
culture, and gender. His point is that, as taboo as the subject is today,
there are differences (statistically) between men and women: how they learn
and how they interact socially, and what they like. Right now, we are doing a
lot of work to make STEM a better environment for women, but we probably also
need to understand that the style of interaction that the poster is
criticizing is not bad per se, it’s just a male style, and it does work - it’s
what young men use to push themselves further. Women, on average, seem to
need/want a different style. It’s going to be hard to figure out how to
accommodate both needs without systematically favoring one.

We may not be at the right stage culturally to have a serious conversation
about this. I think this is one of Paul Graham’s “Things You Can’t Say”
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

~~~
jnbiche
It's not just women who prefer this communication style, by the way. As a
male, I find the constant jockying for position among other men to be tiresome
and stressful. It's particularly acute among other coders. To be honest, it's
also one of the main reasons I don't maintain many friendships with men.

There are others still who are often excluded in this kind of environment:
minorities, LGBTs, and people who are shy by nature.

~~~
golemotron
I feel the same way, but I think it is wrong to consider that style bad. We
shouldn't have to contain our natural exuberance and energy all the time. A
true diversity would provide some place for it.

~~~
jnbiche
Fair point, and I don't consider it "bad" in the workplace. I've worked in
places where there was an abundance of different styles (in academia), and it
worked great. I'm actually kind of trying to return to academia (as staff,
probably) for that reason.

------
protomyth
My main hiring qualification has been "Will this person continue to write code
that will make me get up in the middle of the night?" or "Will this person
contribute to me only working 40 hours and having no emergencies?". I try not
to hire the former and hire the later. The culture thing in the second
paragraph is bull. A bunch of clones is no fun at all and doesn't give the
proper vision.

That being said, the "Nothing a newb can do impresses me, because I can find a
hole in it.” is a bit overblown. Learning means that you are going to get
comments. Some good, some bad. This isn't grade school and I don't remember
anyone handing out gold stars. This is the same crap attitude that leads
directly to ageism since experience is not valued.

~~~
wereabout
>A bunch of clones is no fun at all and doesn't give the proper vision.

Can you explain what this sentence means? Frankly, your English is crap and
your vocabulary confused (particularly your articles), so I have a hard time
understanding you. I'm telling you straight up in the hope that you'll learn
and benefit from my criticism, since I am a very experienced native-English
speaker. I hate wasting my time reading incomprehensible sentences. I'm sure
you understand.

>This is the same crap attitude that leads directly to ageism since experience
is not valued.

No, I think it's mostly been VCs and big Silicon Valley companies looking for
people willing and able to work 60-100 hour weeks that has lead to ageism. And
everyone wants to be the next Google or Apple, so a lot of smaller companies
have aped this culture, including the ageism.

~~~
vernie
Congratulations on your English proficiency; it's very impressive.

~~~
protomyth
Giving the benefit of the doubt, I think wereabout was trying to see how I
handle criticism, but it is really not a good experiment since we are talking
about coding and not English skills. Truthfully, I've had to deal with too
many psychologists and social workers in the early part of my career to be
rattled by that foolishness. I am long past the worrying about a education on
a reservation has affected my English grammar or writing. Particularly when we
are talking about messages on a forum scribbled off in haste. Also, that is
not the language or tone to express a critique unless you get paid by the
media to be outrageous.

So, detouring back to the full explanation. The dictionary definition for the
meaning of clone I was referring to is "a person or thing regarded as
identical to another". Hiring people that are basically the same is boring and
doesn't lead to a diversity of though or experience. Its fine having similar
friends and you will grow with them, but a business shouldn't operate that
way. You owe it to yourself and your investors to cover as much ground in
experience and knowledge as possible.

------
doktrin
I sympathize with the general sentiment but did not like the piece itself. I
am open to considering the possibility that I am in fact part of the problem.
Nonetheless, I will share my thoughts.

> _But because of the urgent need for new blood / ideas in the tech world, our
> lack of ability to reward new developers is a particularly profound example
> of shooting oneself in the foot._

Slow down. You're fresh out of coding bootcamp, so it seems a bit presumptuous
to be pontificating about "our" problem as if you don't have a vested interest
in being "rewarded".

> _Or, put another way, what if a friend had spent a month perfecting his
> roast veal, cooked you some, and was eager for your opinion. Do you really
> want your first reaction, before tasting it, to be, “I hope the wine in the
> veal sauce is authentic French Merlot!”_

This is a deeply flawed analogy. Do you expect potential colleagues and
employers to treat you as a friend would? Do you think a professional chef
would be uncritical of this hypothetical veal if someone came in off the
street with it looking for a job?

> _Seriously, is “Is it responsive?” really the first words you want to come
> out of your mouth, before you’ve even seen the product?_

In my opinion this sounds like a contrived straw man. At a minimum, it's not
generally representative.

> _In the last two months, I built an app with a friend. It’s not rocket
> science. It’s not perfect. But it was a lot of work, and it’s beautiful, and
> it’s mine, and I am so proud of it._

> [from the landing page] : "Free, Easy, _Secure_ "

I could not help but be taken aback. Coming from a group of novice developers,
declaring an app "secure" is a bold claim.

~~~
sosuke
I had a similar feeling. You start out doing grunt work when you're new in a
career, it isn't glamorous and you have to prove yourself through actions.
Coworkers are not friends first, they are coworkers. I'm not sure, but I think
this post has a feeling of entitlement.

~~~
amirmc
I think this thread demonstrates (at least part of) the issue. If you've been
hired then you're _already past_ the first hurdle. The attitude that you
somehow have to 'pay your dues' is part of the overall problem and is akin in
spirit to 'hazing'. There are may ways to give _encouraging_ feedback (I'm
sure there are plenty of books on it), so it's more of an attitude thing.

The comparison with the professional chef is amusing considering the TV chef
shows I've seen. They're regularly abusive, cantankerous and create terrible
environments to work in (imho). Not something that the developer community
should aspire to.

~~~
doktrin
> The attitude that you somehow have to 'pay your dues' is part of the overall
> problem and is akin in spirit to 'hazing'.

> There are may ways to give encouraging feedback

You seem to be implying that these two concepts are mutually exclusive.
They're in fact completely independent of one another.

> The comparison with the professional chef is amusing considering the TV chef
> shows I've seen. They're regularly abusive, cantankerous and create terrible
> environments to work in (imho). Not something that the developer community
> should aspire to.

That actually wasn't lost on me. TV shows aggrandize it, but the culinary
world is not a polite one.

If anything, this should help serve as a point of reference. The "tech
industry" is not harsh. It is in fact exceedingly gentle.

~~~
amirmc
> You seem to be implying that these two concepts are mutually exclusive.
> They're in fact completely independent of one another.

My point here (perhaps poorly made) is that people _behave_ as though they're
mutually exclusive. e.g. that you're not _really_ paying your dues unless
people are shitting on your work (and when you've progressed, you'll shit on
those below you).

> The "tech industry" is not harsh. It is in fact exceedingly gentle.

Picking an extreme example and then saying tech is gentle by comparison is
somewhat ridiculous. The tech industry is certainly more relaxed in a number
of ways (e.g dress code) but that doesn't mean it's 'gentle' in every respect.
As the OP tries to point out.

~~~
doktrin
> My point here (perhaps poorly made) is that people behave as though they're
> mutually exclusive. e.g. that you're not really paying your dues unless
> people are shitting on your work (and when you've progressed, you'll shit on
> those below you).

You're jumping to the unreasonable conclusion that the only possible
interpretation of "paying ones dues" is to be "shit on".

That is, quite correctly, the view held by certain occupations (e.g. the
military), but it is not the only way to parse the term.

A more charitable way of interpreting it would be as shorthand for
"demonstrating commitment and competence". This is a fairly ubiquitous concept
across virtually all professions.

> Picking an extreme example and then saying tech is gentle by comparison is
> somewhat ridiculous. The tech industry is certainly more relaxed in a number
> of ways (e.g dress code) but that doesn't mean it's 'gentle' in every
> respect.

Did you expect me to enumerate every industry that I consider less forgiving
and more emotionally demanding than tech? Fine.

    
    
        academia
        finance
        military & law enforcement
        law
        medicine
        management consulting
    

Those are just the industries I could name off the top of my head and which I
have enough familiarity with to pass judgment.

------
Practicality
Being in the senior position I have had both attitudes (critical AND
supportive), and I can tell you it has to do with how the ideas are presented
to me.

Sometimes the new developer will come in and talk about how his new thing is
better than everything else, and everything written before him was garbage.
You can bet he will get a lot of criticism. This is not some ego thing
(although I am sure that does have an effect), but because it's clearly what
he needs in order to gain perspective. I mean, unless he really did create
something that awesome, but so far that has not occurred.

On the other hand, I have had people show me things that are not very good,
but the idea is good and she just wants to show me. In those cases I have a
lot of praise for her and encourage her to develop it further

Likewise, if the person is just looking for input, I will usually focus on the
positive.

While it may not always be true, if you find you get a lot of criticism it may
be because you are overly promoting your own work.

~~~
jnbiche
This is a totally fair attitude. To be honest, there have been a few times
when I've been going on and on about something I've accomplished (not even
necessarily in software) and I've been cut down by a more experienced person.
After I finish fuming, I usually stop and think, and that's been a good thing.

The problem I've run into in software is that I've also been slammed when I've
very humbly and timidly introduced a project or some code, in an area I'm new
in. It's a problem, more so than in other professions/hobbies I've spent time
in.

~~~
Practicality
That's really a shame. I know a lot of my success has been due to the patience
and instructions given by my seniors when I started.

Perhaps your success can be in spite of the critics.

------
Bahamut
I have learned a similar lesson over the past few months - I was thrust into a
leadership position by part circumstance, and when it came to working with
junior developers, it clicked that I needed to be building them up & increase
their confidence in the correct approaches to engineering, not be hyper
critical. I am indeed hypercritical of my own work, always striving for self-
improvement, but I recognize that different people are at different stages of
their lives, and it does no good to expect that everyone is the same as me.

There is a lack of empathy in the industry at large for people attempting to
enter as a software engineer, and on a human level, it is an awful thing -
many of them are people like us trying to make their way in the world and live
a better life. It is a forgotten point, and I wish more would contribute
towards the future.

~~~
kylestlb
In addition, those junior devs could also be hypercritical of their own work.
However, they may not have the same experience or context of a senior
developer and could simply be unaware of the scope of improvement. That's
where mentoring and teaching should come in!

------
tptacek
The kernel of the argument in this post is hiring. The discussion about "coder
culture"† is germane because it drives the gatekeeping function of in-group
coders in hiring.

I don't have a problem with people discussing what is or isn't productive
about how a stereotypical programmer behaves in groups.

But the real issue here is that the stereotypical programmer is given entirely
too much authority in the hiring process; a ludicrous amount of authority once
you see the alternatives available.

Only a tiny minority of tech companies hire against any kind of formal
assessment rubric. A majority will make direct hire/fire decisions based
entirely on face-to-face unscripted interviews --- no matter what kind of
information has been collected in the hiring process, which is usually
slipshod anyways.

If I'm right about why this person's argument is important, it's the hiring
process that most urgently needs to change. Which suits me fine, because
there's a lot more wrong with hiring in tech than bias.

† _A concept I reject, but understand._

~~~
nawitus
> Only a tiny minority of tech companies hire against any kind of formal
> assessment rubric.

Is there any evidence of how well this works? From what I've read these
"formal" hiring strategies don't seem to lead to good results. In fact, the
typical critique of tech hiring is that "HR" people have too much influence on
the hiring process over technical experts.

I don't know how to solve hiring, but I'm confident that it's not been solved
yet, and it's a very difficult problem.

~~~
tptacek
Nothing I said had anything to do with "HR" people.

~~~
forgottenpass
HR tends to be the implementation of a formal rubric applied to job
candidates, filtering candidates out before resumes wind up on the desk of the
person performing a less rigidly defined consideration.

~~~
tptacek
Yes. Don't do that either.

------
debacle
> Let me give an example — say a new coder had somehow, impossibly, in their
> first month of coding, created an app that would save the planet, plunging
> us into a permanent state of world peace and 100% clean energy. What’s the
> first thing that you as a senior developer would say to that person before
> seeing or testing their project? Let me guess — you’re thinking, “Is it
> responsive?”

You built an email visualizer and are comparing it to some sort of utopian
omnisavior.exe

This reads as an incredibly defensive diatribe about someone who didn't get a
job because she interviewed poorly in her space.

You don't need validation at every turn, and providing that kind of false
validation only cheapens actual accolades.

~~~
arenaninja
> You built an email visualizer and are comparing it to some sort of utopian
> omnisavior.exe

It's a valid point.

I've seen CS grads who struggle getting HTML/CSS/JS+any backend of their
choice up and running. Getting a minimal, shitty app up and running is no
small feat for a junior developer, and it shows perseverance, adaptability and
willingness to learn (whether they're willing to be taught remains to be
seen).

------
moron4hire
I understand what she is saying, and actually mostly agree. However...

Teaching and mentoring are not software development. More teaching and
mentoring need to be done, but it's not the business I'm in. I'm in the
business of making software.

If I have a critical project that must be done right and done on time, I will
not hire junior developers for the team. It's nothing against the jr. dev.,
but in these scenarios I just need the A-Team showing up and I don't have time
to setup a training regimen.

Yes, it would be great if there were a good means to train and bring up new
developers. Most of the universities in the world are failing to train people
to be good developers. Maybe we need a master's of engineering in software
development, with a real engineering certification at the end (and not the
IEEE bullshit one that has nothing to do with software development). Sure, the
top-tier engineering schools like MIT and CMU are putting out good, jr. devs.,
but most people in the market didn't get to go to one of those schools. Most
people went to your run of the mill state school, where nobody cared enough to
buck the status quo and fail them out of their classes if they couldn't hack
it. That any good developers come out of such a system is despite the system.
The pressure to keep graduation rates up has done a monumental disservice to
everyone involved.

Sports teams have farm leagues they can run and groom out excellent players.
Microsoft and Google and Apple have people throwing themselves at their
doorsteps and can cherry pick the best of the best. I'm a freelance consultant
trying to make a go of being more than just a freelance consultant. I don't
have that kind of time on my projects.

Speaking of which, if you're an excellent developer with experience in .NET,
GIS, javascript, and relational databases--and can devote up to 20 hours a
week to a project--please contact me through my profile here.

------
fein
I'm used to this?

I'll be leaving my job here in a few weeks for what I consider my dream gig. I
expect to be criticized on nearly every project, because that makes me a
better coder.

I'm not sure if it's just adapting to the environment or if I actually like
the general cynicism. A pat on the back is nice, but I strongly believe in the
"this is always shit" mantra of software dev. There is always _something_ that
can be improved, and beating around the bush with flowery language doesn't
really help to fix it.

> but it’s pretty tough to come back from, “I don’t know” on your first
> interview question.

Argh, don't ever answer a question with just "I don't know". At least speak to
how you would figure it out.

~~~
pcmonk
When I feel like I'm doing good work, I'm a lot more productive, and I care
more about doing things right vs just getting them done. Obviously
constructive criticism needs to happen -- the author isn't disputing that. In
fact, she says "it's been tough to get useful feedback" because people care
more about cutting the other person down than actually evaluating the work.

It's very easy to couch constructive criticism in a few words of sincere
praise/recognition of their work, and it generally results in them doing
better work in the future. In fact, they'll be much more likely to listen to
your criticism if you haven't immediately put them on the defensive. Once
either side gets at all defensive, it's extremely difficult to have any kind
meaningful conversation. If you always say "this is crap", then you're
literally asking them to defend themselves.

If you haven't already, I would recommend reading "How to Win Friends and
Influence People" by Dale Carnegie.

~~~
debacle
> When I feel like I'm doing good work, I'm a lot more productive, and I care
> more about doing things right vs just getting them done.

What you're really saying is that you have the rewards system of a child. The
application the author wrote is very simple and has no use - what kind of
feedback is she looking for?

~~~
pcmonk
I suspect even "I can think of no use case for this app" would be more
appreciated than "is it fully buzzword-compliant?"

Additionally, phrases like "What you're really saying is that you have the
rewards system of a child" are exactly what I'm talking about. That statement
is intentionally worded as an attack, so I have to make a conscious effort to
not get defensive. If you want an actual discussion about how rewards systems
may change as people grow up, we can talk about that. That was an extremely
ineffective way of starting the conversation, though.

------
vezzy-fnord
_What’s the first thing that you as a senior developer would say to that
person before seeing or testing their project? Let me guess — you’re thinking,
“Is it responsive?”_

Does it reflect poorly on me if this sounds like a rather convoluted
hypothetical? Then again, I'm not involved in web development, for what it's
worth. Maybe there are people who actually think like this.

~~~
doktrin
It sounded silly to me as well. I do work with web technologies, albeit in
research and not industry. Maybe it's a web startup thing.

------
nercury
If you want to see real delight in your work, do it for someone who needs it!

They are usually not your co-workers :)

~~~
swagasaurus-rex
This comment holds more truth than is evident.

The fact is, people who hire you don't actually want you to be better than
them. This, I think, contributes largely to the criticism culture of
programming.

Of course, many interviewers have good intentions. Unfortunately, malign
developers (dare I say, jealous?) are prone to setting a trend for the type of
questions that are asked.

------
JustSomeNobody
1\. A lot of developers are missing something in the brain that allows them to
feel empathy.

2\. Coding is all mental (don't tell that to your hands). So, when you
question a developer's code, it's kinda personal. Some take this hard. Too
hard. So they build up a defensive barrier.

3\. Developers are treated as a commodity by people with business degrees.
This feeds the notion that they need to be perceived as the best (or at least
towards the top). If that means not letting a newb show them up, well, so be
it.

~~~
Kalium
It should be remembered that feeling empathy is not the same as being
controlled by empathy. Just because I feel empathy for a newbie's struggles
does not mean I am going to push sub-standard code live so they can get that
feeling of success.

As the article notes, a ruthlessly critical attitude towards your own work is
very important. I'd argue that it's one of the most important traits that
helps an engineer develop. If we don't teach that, we will collectively become
a community of warm, emotionally supportive, technically worthless people.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Exactly true. One should not be controlled by empathy. Being empathetic allows
one to choose one's words wisely. The goal is not to allow sub-standard code
to pass. The goal is to correct and educate, but do it in a positive way.
Empathy allows one to put oneself in another's shoes and ask, "How would I
want my mentor to correct me?" Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating the
"even losers get a trophy" mentality. But I've been in code reviews that have
turned into blood baths. That's just not appropriate at all. Ever.

~~~
Kalium
I've never been able to find a way to be
warm/positive/supportive/encouraging/empathic while also impressing on someone
that their screwup might have cost the company six+ figures. Or worse - in
some contexts, consequences can be kinetic.

Blood baths are not acceptable, but positivity is not always capable of
effectively communicating consequences. Positivity works best when very little
explaining of mistakes is required.

Sometimes an empathetic explanation that something should be better will
suffice. Sometimes you encounter "It works, it's fine", and something more
than empathy is required.

~~~
JustSomeNobody
If code has gotten out into the wild and has cost a company six+ figures, that
developer is _not_ the company's biggest problem and it's not all his/her
fault.

~~~
Kalium
You'd be surprised. Some companies give individual devs a lot of autonomy.

My point is that positivity and empathy works best when people already know
they've screwed up. Otherwise, you have to explain how they erred, what the
consequences were/are, and how to fix it. The first two are more difficult to
do in a positive way.

------
logn
This touches on a problem I see with some new programmers. They focus too much
on learning and programming for attention from other programmers and not
enough on in-depth mastery for its own sake and building things that help
people. If you want some recognition after you finish something, then show it
to someone who cares about you (family/friends).

That said, the current senior programming culture has forced this situation
upon us by overvaluing the importance of blogs and toy projects.

The critical question posed in the interview seemed fine. That's the last
place I'd expect to hear positive feedback: the goal is to find out quickly
how qualified a person is and that means asking hard questions.

There are lots of intermingled problems in education, hiring, and culture that
are irking the author but I don't think anyone's been able to concisely
explain the problem and solution yet. Edit to add: we really need a Joel
Spolsky 2.0 to enlighten us.

------
MrScruff
Different strokes for different folks.

I've been through the newb->novice->competent->proficient process a few times,
and the thing that's kept me going was the goal of reaching proficiency.
During the process, I'd always be my own harshest critic, because I'd be
acutely aware of all of my weaknesses.

Any praise I'd receive would be rejected, because in my own head the person
would be ignoring all of the obvious issues with what I was doing.

I understand that not everyone responds in this way, but personally I think
it's easier to succeed when the motivation comes from within, rather than
relying on an encouraging environment which ultimately you can't really
control.

------
serve_yay
> Let me give an example — say a new coder had somehow, impossibly, in their
> first month of coding, created an app that would save the planet, plunging
> us into a permanent state of world peace and 100% clean energy. What’s the
> first thing that you as a senior developer would say to that person before
> seeing or testing their project? Let me guess — you’re thinking, “Is it
> responsive?”

Not like I think there is no truth to TFA, but it's pretty much "You think
newbs are dumb, but it is actually you who are dumb." Well, OK, I already
spend a lot of time considering that. And, for what it's worth I think the
senior ones are mostly not so hot either.

------
stevebot
There is that fear that you are always replaceable and your job will be
outsourced. Because of that there is constant belittling and critique.

It all comes down to insecurity.

------
tfigueroa
If a candidate feels "about an inch tall" because of inane criticism, perhaps
it is the candidate that needs to put things in perspective.

~~~
jnbiche
Is criticism in a job interview "inane criticism"?

~~~
tfigueroa
Not always, but sometimes.

In the hyperbolic hypothetical in the article, "But it isn't responsive!"
would be a pretty silly criticism, I think.

------
dnfehren
One cause of this seems to me to be that most things that people would want to
show off (and then possible get smacked down for) have a high enough level of
complexity that they can be hard to quickly and constructively criticize by
someone outside of the process of making the thing.

Rather than try to seek out the good work that someone has done many levels
deep in their code - a time consuming process that might depend on an intimate
knowledge of the application, its requirements and the processes of those who
made it - it's way easier to find a flaw (usually a flaw that you know is flaw
because you've made the same mistake) and point that out. Or, rather than a
real discussion of what assumptions the creator made and how they may have led
to a less-than-ideal solution to a problem it's way easier to say 'wrong,
next.'

Really serious review and criticism is great but it depends on a lot of effort
in building context to make it useful for all the people involved.

------
teh
I'm a bit confused how the interview came in at the end? Did the author use
their project in a job application?

~~~
joeframbach
One of the best ways to grow as a developer is to build something, destroy it,
and build it again. We all have the thought "what other ways can I build
this?" in our heads as we're building a project. Most times I have seven
different ways to do something, and the hardest part is just picking one. So,
in my opinion, a great interview question would be "how else could you have
built this?". It shows that the developer weighed the choices that we all
inevitably have.

------
jstin
This article conflates programming and making a product. The example of
creating 'an app that would save the planet' most likely has little to do with
who programmed it, and more to do with what it is, and how it is applied in
the world.

------
deanj222
I think the real root of the problem is that we are much better at evaluating
how to make something better than accepting and truly appreciating it for what
it is. It's the same as when someone asks for feedback after reading you an
article they just wrote, unconsciously we're biased towards giving feedback to
improve the product being shown, not giving them praise on everything they did
right. That being said, it is possible to train yourself to be better at
giving positive reinforcement and that's what I took from the article.

------
JDDunn9
Cynical people grossly over-estimate the value of their criticism. People
either take pride in their work, and are self-critical, or they aren't, but if
someone worked hard developing something, you complaining about the features
you don't like just lowers their opinion of you. Focus on the positive, let
them see the negatives on their own (everyone does).

Developing open-source software is an instant cure for cynicism. Having your
software torn apart from strangers who've contributed nothing is a quick fix
for criticizing others.

------
Krowbar
This is one reason I've had fun on the tilde club I joined a while back.
There's a culture of curiosity (and curiosities) with a non-critical culture
and a mutually agreed upon "NO DRAMA" rule. I've worked on some silly scripts
and web pages just for the sheer joy of it and I've been able to share my work
with others without fear of the usual hyper-critical community (which I also
love in its own way).

~~~
jnbiche
>This is one reason I've had fun on the tilde club I joined a while back.

Is that still going on?

------
norswap
This confuses programming culture with "the tech world", which might or might
not mean silicon valley, but at least something similar.

One of my very favourite comment on hacker news was about Notch (Minecraft's
creator) just coding toy games and not attempting anything big: "I think pg
might have overlooked this side of hackerdom." I feel the comment can apply
much more broadly.

------
sinetek
"But because of the urgent need for new blood / ideas in the tech world" lol
what?

------
the_cat_kittles
it seems like the so called creative coding community is less about poking
holes and more about cool stuff they made

------
sosuke
There are few different focuses in the post. It bounces around so I may not be
responding correctly. As someone else said the attitude of the approach
matters.

The first example of a junior developer making an application. They are full
of pride, having taught themselves one technology stack to produce one
application. Unfortunately she leaves out the approach. With assumptions, this
junior developer is looking for validation of their achievement from a senior
developer working at the same company. They are not peers, they are not
friends.

If the first thing out of the senior developers mouth was a straight faced "is
it responsive" with no sign of sarcasm then they don't want to be your friend,
mentor, and only care about the number of bugs you create or fix. Great,
you've learned as a junior developer that this senior developer is not on your
side, and you should seek validation else where. From other junior developers
perhaps, or ask another senior developer for feedback while first informing
them you put a lot of work into it and what kind of feedback you want.

The senior developer taught themselves that same stack, and a dozen other
stacks. They did it for free, it doesn't matter that you did, you've made 60
pages of code they've wrote several libraries of congress's worth of bugs.
Your success doesn't mean anything to them because there is nothing special in
it, and they are not your friend. There are other junior developers on the
team that also taught themselves a stack, maybe two. You won't find admiration
for your achievements from within the group. If you want a mentor then
approach the senior developers with that, say you want to learn more, want to
shadow them, peer program perhaps. However don't expect it from them, no one
is entitled to it so you're asking them to put in care and effort. Even asking
someone to review your project has a cost, it takes time, caring, and effort
to do it right.

\------

The interviewer asking a question like that was attempting to engage you in a
critical problem solving thought process. You don't know, that doesn't matter,
how would you find out, what steps would you take, why would there be
alternatives.

\------

The feedback the junior developer received isn't skeptical it is dismissive.
Being dismissive isn't nice. It isn't snobbery, you get to be senior developer
by being a better programmer, by being better at just that stack, by being
there first, by luck or by time.

\------

If you worked at a Michelin star restaurant as a sous chef, and on the side
you worked for a month perfecting a veal dish, then presented it to your head
chef. You bet your ass they would be critical of it. If you presented it to
your friend, they would shower you in praise and enjoy eating it with you.

\------

On hiring, yes there are problems, there are cliques, existing developers
might feel threatened, but those don't just apply to junior developers.

\------

All that being said I love a developer who takes the initiative to teach
themselves a stack on their own time. That is awesome, keep doing it, don't
stop, find other sources of camaraderie and mentorship.

------
10098
Can we please stop using the word "coder", for the love of god.

------
sighsigh
Competition heats up as programming languages get easier... and people obsess
over being accepted by their peers? We learned from punch cards, through flame
wars, and when being a nerd was actually a bad thing to your social status.

Sigh. Sigh.

Programming is no longer a science, it is a liberal art. You're just plumbers
now.

