One of the things I love about personal projects is that you don't need to explain what you did to anyone in a standup. You can devote your energy to the programming instead. I understand in a business context that it is helpful to explain what you did to someone else but let's face it, it also robs some of the joy of the process. Am I wrong here? Isn't programming a more creative endeavour than we think?
Does that give you any more sympathy for the artists who would rather be painting oils than designing yet another ad for hemorrhoid cream? Or poets who really don't want to be copy-editing your documentation?
Most of us would rather be creating art than be beholden to crappy commercial interests. Most of us would rather be the one giving orders than taking them, or compromising our art to other people.
We programmers have been incredibly fortunate to be considered "golden boys" (and a few girls). We spend no more time mastering our craft than the poet or the painter, but we get paid a lot more to do it. We still don't make as much as the one who brings in the seed money and keeps most of the profits, but because reasons we haven't been relegated to the barely-tolerated and barely-paid status of the people who write documentation or make our products attractive, no matter how good they are at it.
We programmers have, I think, become more associated with those who get rich off the process -- the CEOs and CTOs and such -- than the ones doing what we think of as grunt work rather than creative work. We get to dream that our side projects are just one elevator pitch away from our own C suite.
I'm suggesting that you're on to something considerably bigger than a personal gripe. This is a very widespread thing, and maybe the alternative to being unhappy about the difference between our side projects and our day jobs is to help everybody reconsider what "day job" really means. There are a lot of people who would like to be more creative in their work -- including collaborating creatively -- and perhaps finding that people would actually enjoy (and pay for) the results of that.
> e still don't make as much as the one who brings in the seed money and keeps most of the profits, but because reasons we haven't been relegated to the barely-tolerated and barely-paid status of the people who write documentation or make our products attractive, no matter how good they are at it.
I don't think it's lack of regulations that makes our salaries high (barring the sky-high wages at FAANG). For example, in banking - a heavily regulated industry - coders still make way more than people who can write well ("poets"). I think it's just basic supply and demand, there's just not enough people good enough at coding compared to how many are currently needed across all industries. Let's enjoy it while it lasts.
It's definitely supply and demand, but it's not clear to me why the demands for programmers and "poets" are so out of whack. We have a collective notion that the work of the writers don't matter, and so we just collectively decide not to pay them very well, and they're forced to accept it.
Meanwhile, even pretty poor programmers can make a fair bit of money, rather than being priced out. But there are a ton of them, and honestly, there could be even more. Basic programming isn't that hard. Lots of people do it in high school, self-taught, and even more could do that given opportunity and encouragement.
I'm definitely enjoying it while it lasts. I've been expecting it to stop for three decades. I've been wrong the whole time and it looks like it will last the rest of my career.
But I'd really like to see us take a good long look at the whole thing. A lot of talent is going to waste. I'm happy to benefit, but wish others could, too.
Writing something in English is just easier that writing code that compiles and works. You can't bullshit a compiler, but you definitely can put a lot of bullshit into a Word document without anyone noticing (thus making your job a lot easier). That's why coding is harder, more demanding, requires more intelligence and work ethic. Hell, I've known pretty smart coders who lacked the work ethic and they quickly switched to scrum master or analyst roles. They're making less, but as one of them openly admitted, they barely do anything compared to the coders.
If you're getting paid to do it, and you don't own the product/system being sold (as in, making a game you sell to customers), you owe your employer an explanation of what you're doing and why if asked. You're selling your time and skills in exchange for their money, which they want to turn into more money.
This question would get the same response from me if posed by an aerospace engineer in the context of making planes for Boeing versus a home-built ultralight aircraft or drone. Sure, you don't get the same control, and you have to explain your choices and efforts to your employer, because you're not doing the same thing in those two situations.
If you want to find joy in programming, you need to own the project or find a project and organization aligned with what brings you joy. I wouldn't get any joy out of making some b2b financial services system, but I would get money from it so probably wouldn't object. I'd clock out at 4pm or whenever my 8 hours were up every day. OTOH, I did enjoy making and testing safety critical systems for aircraft. I wouldn't do it as a hobby, but I wouldn't object to longer hours to try and get things working.
I feel like you're mixing up communication overhead with the creativity of programming and they are on completely different axes.
> Isn't programming a more creative endeavour than we think?
This should be fairly obvious but programming isn't monolithic. Your experience will vary depending on your work environment and current project. So you can either put up with it (and there is still plenty of satisfaction that can be had from programming in such an environment, or from doing unglamorous work) or you can look for a job/company that operates differenly or works on more interesting problems (they're rare).
> you don't need to explain what you did to anyone in a standup. You can devote your energy to the programming instead.
These two aren't mutually exclusive. Working on a team comes with communication/meeting/status-report overhead, this doesn't need to take away from your productivity.
This is profoundly true. Programming largely used to be a crazy pile of GOTO statements and "bad code". I shake my fist at today's programming!
The wild west days of things can be crazy but fun. Then the crowds and tax collectors come, laws are made, and now these little atomized commits that stitch together APIs is "programming".
It makes me think of other areas of life. Most of us show up at the boring, overlegislated, agile test driven development phase of things. Maybe it is good to look for the wild roots of anything.
I think programming is a skill which comes with creativity as well... It is also not for everybody... hence,a lot could not understand the concept and process that involves in programming which is why sometimes you have to explain a few things...
In the same idea as what giantg2 said, I've had situations with work where the creative and engaging way to do things was at odds with what was good for the business. Business needed a toute de suite way to make money off my code, not for me to get enjoyment out of writing the software.
Dude coding solves problems, just like any other engineering discipline solves problems. You can make it subjectively as creative/artistic as you want, but it's there to solve problems.
Perhaps you just don't like communicate with people. I also don't like that, when people aren't interested in what I did and I still need to tell them.
Most of us would rather be creating art than be beholden to crappy commercial interests. Most of us would rather be the one giving orders than taking them, or compromising our art to other people.
We programmers have been incredibly fortunate to be considered "golden boys" (and a few girls). We spend no more time mastering our craft than the poet or the painter, but we get paid a lot more to do it. We still don't make as much as the one who brings in the seed money and keeps most of the profits, but because reasons we haven't been relegated to the barely-tolerated and barely-paid status of the people who write documentation or make our products attractive, no matter how good they are at it.
We programmers have, I think, become more associated with those who get rich off the process -- the CEOs and CTOs and such -- than the ones doing what we think of as grunt work rather than creative work. We get to dream that our side projects are just one elevator pitch away from our own C suite.
I'm suggesting that you're on to something considerably bigger than a personal gripe. This is a very widespread thing, and maybe the alternative to being unhappy about the difference between our side projects and our day jobs is to help everybody reconsider what "day job" really means. There are a lot of people who would like to be more creative in their work -- including collaborating creatively -- and perhaps finding that people would actually enjoy (and pay for) the results of that.