Is developer productivity now a binary thing that's 100% if you participate and 0 if you don't?
Spending many hours on doing software development does, in fact, make you better at software development than someone who, ceteris paribus, spent that same time playing video games. I feel that "not necessarily" is becoming the 21st century version of "but there's still a chance, right?"
What is it being better at software development even? There are so many different skills involved in being an effective software developer in a team. I would say for senior+ levels the softskills start being much more important than the technical skill.
Plus if you have been doing it for 10 years+ how much more are you going to improve really by coding more hours?
Software development being a complex, multidimensional skill set makes it even more true that work you put into getting better at it, the better you get.
The field is so wide that you could be doing it for 100 years and still keep learning new things that would improve your work.
And for senior+ levels, where soft skills start to dominate, you still need to have already become competent at the hard things. Soft skills are means for making things happen, but you have to have a clue which things need to happen, and which don't.
I don’t agree at all. Just because you could spend 100 years being a better cook and learning how to cook every dish on earth it doesn’t mean you will be a better Italian chef than someone who puts 20 years.
It isn’t rocket science really, learn the fundamental well, keep practicing 40h a week for years and you will master the craft.
The difference between two masters of the craft won’t be the person who sit more hours on the chair in front of the computer.
Skill doesn't come from nowhere. It comes from practicing it and thinking about it and otherwise being mentally engaged with the field.
And yeah, I'm pretty sure that after 100 years of cooking, and learning how to cook, I'd be better than the person who put in only 20, just by sheer virtue of more internalized knowledge, more time to think, and more practice.
Skill is multi dimensional. Depends on the problem at hand and the people you have available.
Each person brings an unique set of skills based on their experience (professional and life).
I have worked in lots of different industries from designing hardware chips with VHDL to multi datacenter kubernetes deployment with 100k of cores.
I never did side projects neither did I expect more time on the chair from a coworker... Still somehow I can build winning teams with all the different mixes and industries.
"Spending many hours on doing software development does, in fact, make you better at software development than someone who, ceteris paribus, spent that same time playing video games."
By that logic the oldest developers should be the best of all. But that is not true. Some are great, some are average and some are still bad even after a life time of practice.
You missed that ceteris paribus part. What I'm saying is that, given two developers that are pretty much equivalent in their health, mental capacity and the ability to turn work into experience, the one that spent much more time on said work than the other will be much better at it than the other.
What is a better developer in an organization with 1000s of developers that have to collaborate in their team, cross teams etc. I am really curious in your definition of a better developer.
I didn't missed it. It doesn't work like you think it does. Making stuff is too complex to be reduced to such a simple rule. At some point additional practice won't make you better. The example of older programmers proves this.
Spending many hours on doing software development does, in fact, make you better at software development than someone who, ceteris paribus, spent that same time playing video games. I feel that "not necessarily" is becoming the 21st century version of "but there's still a chance, right?"