There is a strong selectivity bias regarding the source of job descriptions being quoted from: Look at the average software development job listing on Monster and similes and you'll find the standard banal, career-programmer targeting lists of technologies and middle-of-the-road expectations.
I also don't think "passion" means either that you're Jesus Christ (where the term "the Passion" means "to suffer", not that he was really into it), or that you must love the code more than your child. But many of us have written or encountered code that feels so elegant and perfect that we get giddy with enthusiasm about it. We've used tools and technologies that seem so game changing that we evangelize them enthusiastically.
That is passion, and it is absolutely real. Some people have it, and many people don't.
None of that says anything about whether it's a good hire trait or not, and it's possible if not probable that many positions do not need, and may even suffer from, a passionate developer.
> But many of us have written or encountered code that feels so elegant and perfect that we get giddy with enthusiasm about it.
For all the companies out there who say they want a passionate programmer, I doubt many of them are really prepared to actually manage one. People with this kind of passion are not motivated by anything you can give them and it takes a lot of coaxing to get their activities to line up with your business requirements.
They could knock out your entire application in a week, and spend the next six months doing absolutely nothing of importance. And there's nothing you can do about it.
You have to fight back against this kind of thing. You have a big advantage, you can easily leave and they can't easily replace you. So use that to extract concessions in the form of salary, work-from-home days, latitude in which tech stacks to use.
I suspect the jobs that tick ~2's boxes are more likely to be jobs where managers see programmers as cogs in a machine. You don't have leverage if they don't believe they can't replace you, even if they can't. And in that sort of job, I think it's quite a bit more likely that they can.
You have to demonstrate the reality of the situation to them before they'll come to see it your way. In this case, the most effective thing would be to go get yourself another job offer, print it out, and bring it into your department head's office. Say you kind of like it here but you can't ignore the $X000 extra you'd be making over there.
Then negotiate. The job offer is your leverage. It says, directly and to the point, that you're an undervalued asset, and the fact that you're in their office states that you're willing to deal with them to make sure all parties are satisfied.
Until you bring this document to them, then there's no reality anywhere in the equation and all that matters is what's being perceived. Since they're paying you, they will rightly believe that their take on the situation should be considered the correct one. Right not because it better reflects reality, but right because the balance of power at the moment favors them.
I'm a passionate programmer but I've felt kind of like a fish out of water for most of my career.
I feel as though I could run at least 100% more effectively if I found the right organisation that harnessed this passion. The work wouldn't even need to be mega exciting - just the right combination of process, tools, culture etc.
I think I do OK for my clients, but the high notes I hit are on my own projects and freelancing work.
I don't have any clear answers for you. I personally like the situation where I'm the only programmer in my domain at the entire organization. It gives me stability in the form of a salary, latitude because I'm the only one who knows how to translate the requirements into working code.
The stakes are small, but I get a lot of free time because prior poor business decisions are forcing them to keep a full-time guy for a workload that really could be handled by a part-time contractor. I can spend lots of time being cautious and focusing on implementation details. Also screwing around and browsing HN.
I don't get paid what a full time Rails dev should be getting paid in this job market, but the intangibles I've managed to wring out of the arrangement make it worth it.
Eventually I'd like to find/train a sales guy to line up deals and another code guy like you to help me implement them. But for now I like where I am.
I work for a lifestyle company with a lot of smart people, and I feel at home for the first time in my career. They get that I care, and they get that I have a life outside of work. Exactly what I'm looking for!
Complete agreement. You can't so much manage a passionate programmer as you can try to leverage (exploit is the word I want to use, but it holds so much baggage) their passion in an aligned interest way.
Every company can absolutely benefit from such people if used right, but woefully few know how.
Exactly. When it comes to using the term "passionate" when it comes to coding, I think of the term as relative, not absolute.
That is, compared to most of those around me when it comes to coding, I am passionate. Compared to how I feel about everything else (i.e. the love of my wife/child), I'm not as passionate.
I also don't think "passion" means either that you're Jesus Christ (where the term "the Passion" means "to suffer", not that he was really into it), or that you must love the code more than your child. But many of us have written or encountered code that feels so elegant and perfect that we get giddy with enthusiasm about it. We've used tools and technologies that seem so game changing that we evangelize them enthusiastically.
That is passion, and it is absolutely real. Some people have it, and many people don't.
None of that says anything about whether it's a good hire trait or not, and it's possible if not probable that many positions do not need, and may even suffer from, a passionate developer.