This was my perspective as well when I worked in a cost center. Working for a company that sees making software as something that generates profit entirely changed the relationship. I would personally rename this article “don’t work in a cost center, even as a programmer.” Because then are you treated as a tool whose cost must be minimized and hopefully eliminated. As opposed to a golden goose that must be nurtured.
This article is classic bait for the Hacker News audience, submitted by HN user "codedaddy" whose account was just created 2 hours ago to submit this post.
The entire point of this article is to make us all mad. Let's not be silly by giving the author what they want.
“ In contrast, in the professional world, what you are going to do is dictated by your manager down to the last line of code. The feature and testing requirements would be specific enough to get rid of all creative freedom”
The post lost me here. Sounds like the author has just worked at some really bad places. That or I live in a bubble and what the author is describing is typical.
> in the professional world, what you are going to do is dictated by your manager down to the last line of code. The feature and testing requirements would be specific enough to get rid of all creative freedom.
Maybe I'm just lucky, but I've worked in a large software house for over a decade and I'm enjoying a lot of creative freedom when it comes to the code I'm writing.
To me this reads more like reasons not to work at this person's particular company.
As you said, you define your creativity by your code itself.
I think some programmers (at least me) want a wider freedom, for example about features, or process, or devops stuff, etc etc.
I think the more you're in a big structure with defined roles, the more it's difficult to have this freedom, not only about the way to code, but the way to work.
I'm probably a bit blessed, but I have a voice in all those facets. I think the key for me has been to work on a small product-focused team that defines its own microcosm within the larger org, where the roles aren't too rigidly defined and everyone mostly just does what is needed to move the ship forward.
I thought it was a clickbait at first, but to be honest, the first paragraph sounds sadly true to me. I have been a CTO and co-founder and loved coding that way, because it was a highly creative job, in which my brain was used for many other things than coding.
But now, I'm looking for a new job, and what I feel with permanent positions as a full stack developer I'm applying for, is that business/management people are looking for nerdy people to EXECUTE their visions ("heyyyy we need a ninja hacker, you'll have free beers and pizzas !").
Sometimes I have the feeling that if I introduce myself as a developer, I look like 10 times worse than what I actually am.
PS: I'm not living in California, developers are not considered rockstars everywhere in the world, unfortunately.
Incorrect, you must become a programmer (even if you are a CEO). The world is becoming more complex (multi dimensional) as well as more abstract (I.e. everything has an API), hence the only way to make decision in the future will be with data and with computational thinking.
The CEO image and salary will be long gone (see what happens to banks, insurance companies, car companies). The same thing will happen to all other service aspects (e.g. law, medicine). And programmers are the one that would cause it.
On the other hand, even tech companies reward particularly based on the number of people reporting to you rather than technical competence, smarts, acumen etc. That's because no matter how individually brilliant someone can be, what matters is the ability to direct resources, and that is roughly measured in the numbet of directs. Sure, there is a hierarchy of technically brilliant people: principals, advocates, ..., but their number is dwarfed by those that rise by having directs. In the end, a brilliant loner is more of a liability than a corporate schmooser with 100+ below him.
So, I think that you are looking at the rear view mirror (as well as the article author). We are living in a world of zero cost compute / zero cost capital / zero cost media.
The industries that can afford this kind of internal power grab are about to get distributed in the next 5 years (cars companies - gone, banks - gone, insurance companies - gone, commercial real estate - gone, media - gone).
On the other hand, the ability of individual to get tractions for a valuable ideas is immense.
So if we assume that the only services that a programmer get from a company can be rented outside of the company without the overhead of management / internal politics / etc, than there is no reason for a programmer to work in this old structure.
The key point that should be clarified is that people still equate 10 programmers = 10 * 1 programmer, or 100 programmer = 100 * 1 programmer, and this equation is not correct.
A bit over the top, but if you do not like programming, that will be your experience.
When I started out in this field, I actually took a pay cut. But I loved the job, I followed trends and educated myself and was luckily to work for good managers. And I am still doing the work and did all I can to avoid being a manager.
But about 25 or so years ago, I started seeing people getting into the field just for the pay and cared little for the work. This has been accelerating since.
Some were good, but many were rather bad in various degrees at the job, so others would have to step in to fix their work. But they were all good at marketing themselves and dotting the 'iS' and crossing the 'tS', so they were able to hang on until get they got into management, which may have been to be their main goal. In fact one I know was this way but ended up being a very good manager after a year or two of moving to that position.
I wonder if he was one of those and was not able to 'move up'. (even though he may be good at is work). I just put up with the BS at work so I can feed my 'habit', which in comparison makes the BS seem trivial.
What an absolutely cringe article, jesus christ almighty.
Edit: Literally the BEST decision I made was to become a programmer. Nearly EVERY door that has opened has been the direct or indirect result of my own ability to build whatever my imagination can conceive. "Mike" sounds like someone who just wants to rationalize away their insufferable job.
He started the article by saying that there were already enough articles written about the positives. While it does sound a little like he’s not happy with his job, I think he acknowledges off the bat that there are a lot of positives as well.
The main points made by the article are not unique to any particular job or industry. The method, if one is to get more freedom of choice in work, is to get yourself onto important projects that contribute to the bottom line.
For a broader view, years ago I read the book, "Power: Why Some People Have It—and Others Don't" by Jeffery Pfeffer, and it was an excellent object lesson in understanding how and why companies work the way they work, how decisions are made, and why you can do the same job in different organizations and yet have a totally different experience one organization to the next.
"In contrast, in the professional world, what you are going to do is dictated by your manager down to the last line of code. The feature and testing requirements would be specific enough to get rid of all creative freedom."
LMFAO. My biggest challenge is getting my manager to tell me what the hell to do.
None of the things in this article are specific to programming, they are all just the potential downsides of being an employee. In some situations you are an inferior, replaceable tool that is a burden on the company, whether you are a programmer or not. But there is a possibility that you prove yourself superior and become harder to replace.
I think the real downside to becoming "a programmer" is the antisocial tendencies that arise from staring at a screen all day, hyper-analyzing esoteric patterns of symbols. This tendency leaks into other aspects of life that don't benefit from an intellectual breakdown. It's plain to see the author is upset about something, but they defer to their analysis of programming as a profession instead of the stark reality of their emotional state.
Can't this be said for any profession that creates for an organisation? I'm studying design currently, when I enter the workforce I will be a tool in a system ran by others. I've seen many people say this in different ways: when you pick a career you really have to think to yourself if the annoying or "bad" parts are something you can handle
This person's experience is not universal and mostly applies to the least desirable tier of programming jobs. A proper list would contain a mention of the physical effects of long term computer use, artificial lighting, plastic-y environments, and the like.
Precisely. In fact, the last part of the article explicitly states that.
> Take an application that you use every day, such as YouTube. Very likely, it is mainly written and maintained in a single country, the United States. Engineers not part of YouTube and engineers elsewhere in the world are just tasked with creating and maintaining mundane business applications.
I presume this is a troll post. But in all seriousness you should probably quit your job and do some introspection. It sounds like you ended up in a pretty dead-end position.
Having worked at startups and big tech I can say this article is wrong on so many levels. Programming complements you in all walks of life. You can be a ceo/ manager and still be a programmer. Also I never felt like being a tool or being a burden if you work at a non tech company then it might be true but at tech companies I’ve always felt more empowered than anyone else in making product decisions and I’m talking massive companies. This is just a rant by someone working in the tech dept. of target!
Unfortunately, not everyone is as fortunate. You need to be in the right place at the right time to have good experience like yours. I think the author mentions this in his last few paragraphs.
> So, at the risk of attracting a fair amount of hatred, let’s begin.
Disagreeing is not hatred, even derision is not hatred. Come on. Nobody hates this person. I really wish people would stop with this little bit of theatrics.
