This is a good object lesson for the common advice of "do what you love". If you really love working with computers, then it is really hard to resist messing with them all the time. So you have a side effect of constantly improving your knowledge. But if you don't love it, but are only into programming because you can make money at it, then you won't be driven to constantly learn (even if that learning is just a side effect of "playing"). Now that doesn't necessarily mean that you will be an expert at everything, but people who have a passion for this type of sport will be in a position to pivot when needed.
I've run into people in similar situations, they used to be a systems administrator or a developer, but are completely out of it and no longer able to write any code. In some cases it is burn out, but I couldn't imagine ever going so much as a week without experimenting with something that is intellectually stimulating.
Now it may be that the protagonist in this story really did have a passion for translating business logic rules into Cobol. But was he really doing programming, or was it more following a set of procedures that ended up cranking out the needed code, without having to really invest a lot into the process? Because if there was a strong passion there, I'd think it would have extended to continuously tinkering around with other technology. (Or am I getting dangerously to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?)
Man, I am real, real sick of the premise that I, as a professional, am somehow second rate due to the fact that I have interests outside of my work when I am not working. I build a lot of shit, I am real good at my job, and I have survived multiple rounds of the predominant tech stack being totally purged, but when the whistle blows I am not in front of a keyboard.
You guys should really consider cultivating interests outside your work. You'll be glad you did.
And you'll also find that dedicating yourself to professional excellence just within the context of your daily work will yield more than enough opportunities to develop technologically. There's a lotta shit going on out there that's directly relevant to your work, you just gotta try it out.
... but you are second rate. Get over it. Professionalism has nothing to do with this.
You are second-rate (or worse), as am I, because there is always someone who is as smart or smarter who is also single-mindedly more interested in the topics of our work. For every discipline there is an Erdős, who will make the rest of us look like fools and dilettantes.
Tonight, when I knock off, I'm going to put on a silly cotton outfit and spend a couple hours grappling. There is absolutely no way that such a hobby would make me better at what I do than some shadow version of myself that instead spent those 2 hours learning about Galois Field Theory or advances in compiler optimization or some such. Next to that person, I am second-rate and will always be happy to be so, but I'm not going to get mad and bitch about how that sort of person does better than I do at work.
By that logic, since there is always someone as smart as or smarter than the next person, then by induction everyone is second-rate except some mythical super hero who is absolutely the best in a given field.
You know what happens to people who put in those two extra hours of work every night? They go to work the next day and still get paid the same amount of money as if they hadn't. Then they wake up at 40 wondering why they wasted decades doing extra work for the same salary instead of enjoying life and doing something, /anything/, besides staring at a computer all day.
99.9% of people don't have to care about being second-rate, or even third-rate or fourth-rate, because most developers aren't Paul Graham and they aren't Saving The World (TM). They're feeding their families and enjoying their hobbies outside the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. And that's okay. Even so, just because they don't print out Linux kernel mailing list e-mails and snort Dennis Ritchie's ashes with them doesn't mean they're second-rate.
Your induction is nonsense, as the OP is talking about being a 9-5'er. It's not all that hard to outwork a 9-5'er and most names that we have heard, from any field of endeavor at all (math, cs, science, engineering, creative fields), would have done so.
Also, some of those people who put in those extra two hours of work go on to get promoted faster and/or wind up getting their names on Big Important Things.
Either way is a perfectly fine choice, but there's no call to have a hissy fit at the idea that there are people who are just as smart as you (or smarter) who are out-working you, and possibly not even having a particularly bad time doing it. Way back in this thread, the original guy was talking about enjoying tinkering with computers...
Moreover, the presumption that you're outworking me is... well, it's certainly possible, some do. I certainly know a few. Fewer than you seem to think though. It's possible that my disdain for recreational programming is a byproduct of my workload, rather than the other way around.
Either way, my server is back up, so I'm gonna go play my guitar.
At no point did I ever suggest I am outworking you.
I'm pretty squarely in the "work and go home" camp, although I have been known to spend more time pondering algorithms problems and SIMD programming than is entirely reasonable.
However, I have done you a similar reading comprehension fail by suggesting you are a 9-5'er, which is a idea introduced by the other guy (the one who imagines that elite programmers snort Dennis Ritchie's ashes) to the thread.
I think you're misunderstanding. The problem is not that there are very good people to be second to, it's that people are cargo-culting on their observable characteristics and thus mis-valuing people.
One doesn't become Erdős just by carrying around math books and sleeping on couches all the time, after all.
Speaking personally, I have a bunch of interests outside of work, many of which do not involve a keyboard. However, I also have an interest in programming projects, though I don't get as much time as I'd like to pursue them. Why would I want to do more programming at home when I do that all day at work? Simple: at work, I'm not working on my project, nor do I get to do it the way I want. At home, I can do whatever I want for my project, and I can do it any way I please, organizing my code however I want, using whatever OS on my computer I want, having whatever kind of workstation setup I want, and not having to use a computer that's hobbled by IT.
Fair enough, I been doing the startup thing for so long, I forget about big company problems. My typical workday is probably a lot more wild west than the average coder's. I imagine there are a lot of people out there whose creativity is somewhat stifled in their work. Many times it takes everything I have to keep the lights on around here.
Just to add to this: at home, my computer is more like Usain Bolt (well maybe that's exaggerating a bit, but still). It runs the OS I like, with a monitor setup I like, the keyboard I like, etc.
At work, my computer runs Windows, and Linux in a VM (but not the distro I want, but rather one which is pre-approved). So instead of a supreme athlete like Usain Bolt, it's like a 60-year old chain smoker who gobbles Twinkies.
Then, add in various IT policies and software. This is like taking the Twinkie-eating chain smoker and doing to him what happened to the guy in that movie "Misery".
And people wonder why I'd want to do more programming after work...
For a car analogy, my computer at home is like a Ferrari. My computer at work is like a 1980s Ford Taurus. And adding IT's changes to it is like trying to make the Taurus tow an 80,000 pound semi-trailer.
This is a pretty accurate description of my motivation for doing side projects. Corporate pays well if you are willing to work on maintaining their existing projects; the catch is that you'll often be working with languages and frameworks which peaked a few years ago. Also, corporate isn't always a productive place. A lot of creative energy is lost on stuff like communication, process and management.
Working on your own projects means getting to work with stuff that excites you, and to pave the road for future opportunities. Most of all, to have fun.
That being said, my wife and kids have first dibs on my spare time these years and that's fine. I try to squeeze in half an hour of recreative programming a day.
I like the cut of your jib. I am wondering, though, how does one keep current without spending copious off hours, when there's no way to learn anything not relevant to work on the job?
I mean, I grant that there are places where there's just nothing to do, or more specifically, the organization doesn't allow you to fully apply yourself, but man, there are a million shops out there with their hair on fire.
If you feel like you could do more, I promise there are people that would be happy to feed you as much as you can stand, haha. You do native mobile by any chance? :)
1. Not everyone knows what they love: what are these people supposed to do? Not get a job until they figure it out? For every one person I know who has a true passion and talent for their profession I know ten others who don't know what their "passion" is (and most of whom desperately wish they did)
2. Not every lovable thing is profitable or in demand: my roommate has a passion for film production. But it is a hugely competitive field that is difficult to break into. He's gotten the occasional gig here and there, but nowhere near enough to support himself (and sometimes not enough to pay rent, but that's a rant for another day).
Everyone needs to eat but not everyone can follow their passion.
For number 1, most people know about what they want, or the general direction of their interests, fairly early on. Although there is the bit about you don't know what you like until you've tried it. But the sooner one figures it out, the better off they will be.
For number 2, yes that is an issue. But if you force yourself to do a job you hate, you will be miserable. And if you tolerate it, but don't really dig into it, then those who do will usually come out further ahead. This isn't a moral or value judgement, it is just the way life works.
I personally don't know what I would do if there wasn't good money in computer work. My second choice would have been accounting probably, or one of the trades. But if I was in a job that I absolutely hated, or if it was tolerable but was going away, I most certainly would be working towards something better. Either that, or take up the life of a goat farmer.
>For number 1, most people know about what they want, or the general direction of their interests, fairly early on. Although there is the bit about you don't know what you like until you've tried it. But the sooner one figures it out, the better off they will be.
There's a special hell for those who don't want to treat non-special people as human beings.
Is that really the way I sounded? Not intended that way at all. That is, not intended as a value judgement -- just an observation. If I sounded otherwise, I guess that why I didn't go into a career as a writer.
The point was, You either like what you are good at, and excel, or you hate it, but are good at it anyway, then it takes a lot more effort to excel. Or you get too locked into what you think you like (that happens to pay the bills pretty good), that you don't explore other areas that you might end up being good at. Then the world leaves you behind. (Kind of like getting a kid to try different foods -- you don't know what you may like until you try it, and sometimes you have to keep trying at it until you learn that you like it).
maybe I missed your point, but imagine you were a person who could never go so much as a week without experimenting with something that is intellectually stimulating
then imagine you had spent decades working in programming shops, propping up one poorly conceived project after another, using so many languages and frameworks and operating systems that they blurred before your eyes.
then it might not be hard to understand how tending oranges might be a lot more intellectually stimulating. its not some generalized 'burnout', its just mind numbing boredom
I love making art. That doesn't mean that people are willing to pay me for it enough for me to afford the living that I desire.
Enough with this "do what you love" mantra. It's terrible advice that leads to perpetual career dissatisfaction. If it were so damn fun, then they probably wouldn't be paying you to do it because other people would be willing to do it for free.
What type of art? Are you somewhat good at it (i.e., do you have the "gift" of an artist's eye)? See if that skill can translate to CSS page layouts. Many programmers (such as myself) may be able to put together a functional web app, but a good artist can come in and change a site from functional to an eye-popping pleasure to use. Architecture, photography, book layout, these are other areas that one may not consider to be directly applicable to a love of making art, but really they are (or can be).
And that was my point. It doesn't work for everyone, but it does for more people than they realize (and to more of a degree than what they realize). Find a way to apply a talent to some other domain that can benefit from that talent.
It's not always a lack of passion for the subject. I have plenty of that, and I still hack on things more often than I am idle. I'm always trying to create vs. consume.
However I definitely get not wanting to learn the next thing - especially after hours. Most of what I've watched happen over the last 10 years is just yet another shiny tool to replace the old tool, without any real-world benefit towards actually Getting Shit Done(tm).
Essentially I've watched a lot of technologies get replaced by tech that is only marginally better (if at all) that has one significant feature: It's not the old 'boring' technology. From what I can tell programming languages have become less about getting things done, and more about social signaling you are part of an "in" group.
For technologies that are truly groundbreaking and game changing? I can't tear myself away. For the shiny language of the week? Meh. For Yet Another Web Framework? Yawn. I simply am tired of learning those technologies - learning one or two should be enough, and then you get to work and solve real issues. Learning the syntax differences between Perl, Python, and Ruby is truly a waste of time that is extremely boring in nature - you're generally not learning many new concepts, just different ways of implementing the same stuff you've been doing for 20 years.
You don't need to understand how to operate 14 different hammer models - you pick the regular hammer you usually use, and maybe a speciality one or two for occasional jobs where they make sense. Programmers seem to pick the hammer based on how cool it looks and if their friends think more of the project because it's made with the same hammer they also chose.
I think the amount of time technologists put into re-inventing the wheel is absurd, and has really caused me to largely burn out in the industry and start planning something for "post tech" where it's less learning treadmill for few real world business gains.
Put another way - What gets me up in the morning is solving problems for people in an efficient manner and moving on to the next problem. Many seem to think technology exists to build other technology, and that problem set simply isn't interesting to me.
Thankfully I'm not a programmer - I only have to dabble to show proof of concepts. If I were, I know I would no longer be for largely this fact alone. Learning and using the next new shiny is simply getting boring as hell and uninteresting. It's almost as if the industry has run out of real work to do some days.
I spent a fair bit of time staring at the ruby hammer recently in order to fix up a ruby-hammer-user's misuse of ruby concepts in perl (and I suspect their own native code is rather difficult to understand too). Bleargh.
If you love pursuing a career, finding jobs, following job trends, promoting yourself to potential employers, doing the work necessary to stay ahead of the competition, etc., than sure, doing what you love will keep you employed. Loving to work with computers will not.
Yes -- my rant above wasn't intended to be a value judgement, just more of an observation of the facts. On the other side, it is possible to change what you love. I used to not like tomatoes, but I got tired of taking them off a burger -- so I trained myself to like tomatoes. Also, got tired of throwing out buttermilk (that I'd buy to make biscuits), so I learned to like that too (so I'd drink it before it went to waste). On the tech side, there's been many times that I've preferred one technology, but hated another. But by working towards it, I've become fairly good with things that I previously despised (such as Oracle databases, or Windows API). The trick is to try to find something that you like about those things. Find beauty in even the ugliest of nasties. It is just an approach to life.
What you love can change as you move through your life. Sometimes significantly. Investing a couple of decades in something and then finding you're no longer very motivated by it, can be profoundly discouraging.
right on. programming is a reasonably fast-evolving field, just relying on things like employer-provided training is not enough.
There are exceptions of course - you'd be surprised how many 9-5 types working in big corporations where they are far removed from the core business of the company (manufacturing, insurance, retail etc type industries) never ever take any kind of training or put any effort to stay up to speed otherwise.
Typical model for these companies is to rely on new hires to bring their expertise in modern tech if they are looking to revamp something or they just straight up hire consultants to build "cutting edge" things for them and then look for an inside team to support those once the contractors are gone. In the meantime the 9-5ers become team leads and go from there :)
I've run into people in similar situations, they used to be a systems administrator or a developer, but are completely out of it and no longer able to write any code. In some cases it is burn out, but I couldn't imagine ever going so much as a week without experimenting with something that is intellectually stimulating.
Now it may be that the protagonist in this story really did have a passion for translating business logic rules into Cobol. But was he really doing programming, or was it more following a set of procedures that ended up cranking out the needed code, without having to really invest a lot into the process? Because if there was a strong passion there, I'd think it would have extended to continuously tinkering around with other technology. (Or am I getting dangerously to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?)