Posted by
CowboyNeal
on from the diary-of-a-madman dept.
bsadler writes "There is a pretty interesting article on the psychology of a programmer over at devx. It includes some suggestions that a manager might take into account when dealing with programmers. Maybe my boss will finally give me my own office."
Space/time to walk (at least for me a lot of my ideas come when I'm walking, and walking help me to decide on alternatives)
Music (not so good to makes one want to hear the music instead of working, neither something so bad that breaks concentration)
He doesn't understand Scientists
by
AlecC
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Contrary to popular belief, programmers more frequently resemble artists than scientists. If you want to maximize the creative potential on your development team, you've got to start thinking about the psychology of the programmer and be willing to back it up with management policy.
Which shows that this guy doesn't know scientists. Scientists - true scientists, not technicians - are very like this guy (correctly) describes programmers. Both programming and scientific research are creative skills which, as the man says, require you to be "in the groove". He is not wrong about programmers - he is wrong about scientists. Techicians, to some extent, have less need to be "in the groove" - though much of what he says applies to any human being, with only the time constants varying.
OTOH. 3. Accommodate Reasonable Special Requests. When I get really stuck on a design problem, I go for a walk in some very beautiful woods about three miles from my office. An hours walk in the woods has about an 80% chance of delivering a solution to the problem. Even, curiously, if I don't spend much time conscioulsy thinking about the problem. In fact, I sometimes feel that by subconscious is telling my conscious to let go that problem and leave it to me. Dropping a problem for an hour or day and then coming back to it can be remarkably constuctive.
In fact, I sometimes feel embarasssed that the conscious "me" claims credit for the bundle of mad scientist, lechers, random thought generators, and idiots who inhabit my subconscious and do all the work.
-- Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
As a 'Brit' I too find this very odd. Consider this small chunk of text:
When creative people work on making something new, they often enter a mental state where things just flow. This is a highly desirable state, both for the programmer herself and for the organization that profits by her labors.
If written by someone from the UK (and probably AU or NZ) this would be written like this:
When creative people work on making something new, they often enter a mental state where things just flow. This is a highly desirable state, both for the programmer themself and for the organisation that profits by their labors.
No use of gender, and perfectly correct English too.
-- Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
I felt like I just visited a shrink
by
wordisms
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've got to say that article was quite the ego booster.
First, programming is most definitely an art as it is a blending of layout, design, creativity, and tasteful hacking to derive a solution.
The section about programmer's concentration was interesting, and I definitely fall into that category. It is nothing for me to sit down to go through the process of designing, coding, debugging, and repeat for 8 hours, without realize it at all. It only speaks of my passion for my work, and my enjoyment in solving challenging problems.
Poster here who have noted about treating programmers more like people than equipment hit the nail right on the head. In my school, our proffessors warn us to avoid jobs that look as though the employers treat programmers as "code monkeys" (if you sat enough monkeys at computers typing C, how long would it take until you get MS Office?). At some of my best internships, and the job I have gone back full-time to, my section leader encourages his team to take regular breaks (which often involve heading back to an ongoing game of RISK), schedules frequent offsites/classes/excursions to get us out of the cubicles, and overall creates one of the healthiest work environments I've ever been in.
All that said, I shouldn't be to programmer biased. Not all programmers are great programmers who have mastered that mystical "flow". I could see a manager reading this article, trying all these things, and getting really burnt.
It's all a game of balance that definitely begins with treating employees like people, not equipment.
Re:I felt like I just visited a shrink
by
renehollan
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Designing software is an art. Programming is not an art, it is a craft.
Oh, I take exception with this!
You can't program anything of significance if you can't design, and you can't design if you don't understand how the design is to be programmed. Put more bluntly: pseudo code ain't gonna compile.
Now, it is fair that some of us spend the bulk of our time designing sytems, and others implementing them, stressing the creative or crafty aspects of our skills. But woe unto the programmer who is not aware of the intended (i.e. designed) interaction of components: such a person debug, can't (oops, forgot the </yoda>).
I've been coding for over 20 years. Under my belt I have significant design contributions to:
1. Dataradio synchronous full duplex repeaters and mobile radio modems (mid 80's Z80 code);
2. Nortel's ADAS+ employing speech recognition in the telephone network for directory assistance (T1 A/B bit signalling and parallelization of Viterbi decoding over multiple TMS320 DSPs under pSOS, with a smattering of assembler, and clever allocation of data to memory with various access latencies as appropriate);
3. Teradyne's RMU75x telco loop diagnostic units (TCP/IP and steams-like protocol stacks under MQS on TMS320C30.
4. Chiaro's Optical Router project (automated, distributed test tools, with C++ on FreeBSD, and custom marshelling schemes; as well as porting Gigabit Ethernet device Drivers (C on FreeBSD).
While hapily mentoring less-skilled developers (I actually like the title "Software Engineer" since it reflects the combination of creative design, tempered with proved implementation methods) and even distributing development work, I refuse to ever accept promotion into a primarily management, or even "design" role: creative design often needs to leverage advanced programming techniques -- ever notice how the complex parts of programming languages, like templates, overloading, partial template specialization, and template template parameters, to use C++ as an example language are there to support design patterns and principles?). I have been, and always will be, a programmer: even when designing Emacs is my canvas, and I expect C-x C-c to be engraved on my tombstone.
Those who see programming as only an entry-level path to eventual design and perhaps management roles are taking an extremely narrow view. Career progression should more closely follow at of carpenter: apprentice, journyman, master. A master carpenter remains a carpenter, nevertheless. Even if he takes on architectural roles, they will be enhanced by his knowlege of the craft of carpentry.
Re:It's not really psychology
by
Snork+Asaurus
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'd like to LART some managers who come by every 10 or 15 minutes while I'm working on a project with a very tight deadline, and ask 'Is it done yet?
Under a very tight deadline, I once told a manager quite forcefully:
"Look, each of us has an obligation to the other here. Your obligation is to do everything you reasonably can to empower me and enable me to meet the deadline. My obligation is to do everything that I reasonably can to meet my commitment on this deadline and to inform you when there are things that you can do to improve my chances. Therefore, as part of my obligation, I have to inform you that by constantly interrupting me to ask me how it's going, you are breaking the concentration that I have spent several hours building and reducing my chances of meeting the deadline in the order of 2 or more hours* per interruption."**
He looked quite shocked at first but then seemed to summon his memories of his days in the trenches, apologized and backed off. We had a new understanding from that point on.
----
* 1/2 hour to cool off + 1 hour to re-build my mental state + 1/2 hour fudge ('cause we always gotta fudge;)
**(This is what I said IIRC. It was some years ago and legends tend acquire new dimensions over time. It's also possible that I said something more concise like "quit f---ing bugging me, so I can get this done". I can't remember exactly now.)
What we have here is a classic case of "telling programmers what they want to hear". I wonder if this guy is selling something?
--
--sdem
Re:No longer true
by
Dixie_Flatline
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I agree with this, and I don't.
I'm sure most programming in big business environments has become very sterile. In a Dilbert-esque setting, I can see where you're coming from.
Where I program, I'm not sure that holds true (though I'm well aware that the kind of programming that I do is somewhat atypical). There's an overall design, but programmers are given subsystems to implement. They're told what it has to do, but not necessaily HOW it has to be done. Each programmer at the company could complete the task, but I'm sure no two solutions would never be the same.
As for CS students learning things by rote: I was going to say that you're wrong, but then I thought about it and decided that you're partly correct again. I saw a lot of people with no love for computing get through computing science because they test really well. Me, I test like crap on a stick, so I had to actually learn the lessons of algorithmics and creative thinking that are the subtext in those classes. I think the majority of people that go through CS and never once think about any sort of research career path are the kind of boilerplate programmers that you're talking about. Someone that has some desire to discover something new will make a perfectly creative programmer in the real world, and it may happen more than you think.
Software bees
by
UncleSocks
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Whenever I read useful articles such as this, I'm reminded of Orson Scott Card's "How software companies die":
Software - How Software Companies Die
By: Orson Scott Card
The environment that nutures creative programmers kills management
and marketing types - and vice versa. Programming is the Great Game.
It consumes you, body and soul. When you're caught up in it, nothing
else matters. When you emerge into daylight, you might well discover
that you're a hundred pounds overweight, your underwear is older than
the average first grader, and judging from the number of pizza boxes
lying around, it must be spring already. But you don't care, because
your program runs, and the code is fast and clever and tight. You won.
You're aware that some people think you're a nerd. So what? They're
not players. They've never jousted with Windows or gone hand to hand
with DOS. To them C++ is a decent grade, almost a B - not a language.
They barely exist. Like soldiers or artists, you don't care about the
opinions of civilians. You're building something intricate and fine.
They'll never understand it.
BEEKEEPING
Here's the secret that every successful software company is based on:
You can domesticate programmers the way beekeepers tame bees. You
can't exactly communicate with them, but you can get them to swarm in
one place and when they're not looking, you can carry off the honey.
You keep these bees from stinging by paying them money. More money
than they know what to do with. But that's less than you might think.
You see, all these programmers keep hearing their parents' voices in
their heads saying "When are you going to join the real world?" All
you have to pay them is enough money that they can answer (also in
their heads) "Geez, Dad, I'm making more than you." On average, this
is cheap. And you get them to stay in the hive by giving them other
coders to swarm with. The only person whose praise matters is another
programmer. Less-talented programmers will idolize them; evenly
matched ones will challenge and goad one another; and if you want to
get a good swarm, you make sure that you have at least one certified
genius coder that they can all look up to, even if he glances at other
people's code only long enough to sneer at it. He's a Player, thinks
the junior programmer. He looked at my code. That is enough. If a
software company provides such a hive, the coders will give up sleep,
love, health, and clean laundry, while the company keeps the bulk of
the money.
OUT OF CONTROL
Here's the problem that ends up killing company after company. All
successful software companies had, as their dominant personality, a
leader who nurtured programmers. But no company can keep such a leader
forever. Either he cashes out, or he brings in management types who end
up driving him out, or he changes and becomes a management type himself.
One way or another, marketers get control. But...control of what?
Instead of finding assembly lines of productive workers, they quickly
discover that their product is produced by utterly unpredictable,
uncooperative, disobedient, and worst of all, unattractive people who
resist all attempts at management. Put them on a time clock, dress
them in suits, and they become sullen and start sabotaging the product.
Worst of all, you can sense that they are making fun of you with every
word they say.
SMOKED OUT
The shock is greater for the coder, though. He suddenly finds that
alien creatures control his life. Meetings, Schedules, Reports. And
now someone demands that he PLAN all his programming and then stick to
the plan, never improving, never tweaking, and never, never touching
some other team's code. The lousy young programmer who once worshiped
him is now his tyrannical boss, a position he got because he played
golf with some sphincter in a suit. The hive has been ruined. The best
coders leave. And the marketers, comfortable now because they're
surrounded by power neckties and they have things under control, are
baffled that each new iteration of their software loses market share
as the code bloats and the bugs proliferate. Got to get some better
packaging. Yeah, that's it.
Not limited to programmers
by
Selanit
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It seems to me that the "flow" the article discusses is not limited to programmers or artists; it can happen to anyone who is truly involved in a task that they love, in any area of endeavor.
I code. Admittedly, it's just PHP, a language of limited utility for anything but web-oriented tasks, but nonetheless a real programming language. I have felt that "flow" when working with PHP: you code fast, overcome obstacles fairly quickly, and it all just flies out of your head and into being. Then you blink and realize that it's been 10 hours since you sat down, and you haven't had anything to eat or drink since breakfast. It's glorious.
But PHP is just a hobby. I'm a medieval literature postgrad; I write papers analyzing tales written over a thousand years ago (my specialty is Old English). And I can tell you that when I really get going on a paper, I reach the same mental state as I described above: I sit, I type, and it flows. The thoughts I've been tumbling around coalesce miraculously into a full paper. Sometimes the flow lasts even into the "debug" stage where I have to go through and check to make sure that all of the footnotes are there, and that every comma, semicolon, and punctuation mark is in place, from the first sentence to the end of the bibliography.
For this reason, I believe that "flow" happens to anyone who is capable of becoming absorbed in a task. The type of task is probably important, though. I feel a bit flow-ish writing this post, because the topic is interesting and requires thought. But if you set me out as a lifeguard, say, over a pool full of people, I would never, ever achieve "flow". "Zoned out" maybe, but not "flowing" (which is bad news for the drowning guy in the deep end). On the other hand, repetitive physical labor -- setting bricks, knitting, making chain mail armor -- can be mentally liberating (in proper amounts).
Slashdot Mirror
Which shows that this guy doesn't know scientists. Scientists - true scientists, not technicians - are very like this guy (correctly) describes programmers. Both programming and scientific research are creative skills which, as the man says, require you to be "in the groove". He is not wrong about programmers - he is wrong about scientists. Techicians, to some extent, have less need to be "in the groove" - though much of what he says applies to any human being, with only the time constants varying.
OTOH. 3. Accommodate Reasonable Special Requests. When I get really stuck on a design problem, I go for a walk in some very beautiful woods about three miles from my office. An hours walk in the woods has about an 80% chance of delivering a solution to the problem. Even, curiously, if I don't spend much time conscioulsy thinking about the problem. In fact, I sometimes feel that by subconscious is telling my conscious to let go that problem and leave it to me. Dropping a problem for an hour or day and then coming back to it can be remarkably constuctive.
In fact, I sometimes feel embarasssed that the conscious "me" claims credit for the bundle of mad scientist, lechers, random thought generators, and idiots who inhabit my subconscious and do all the work.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
As a 'Brit' I too find this very odd. Consider this small chunk of text:
If written by someone from the UK (and probably AU or NZ) this would be written like this:
No use of gender, and perfectly correct English too.
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
I've got to say that article was quite the ego booster.
First, programming is most definitely an art as it is a blending of layout, design, creativity, and tasteful hacking to derive a solution.
The section about programmer's concentration was interesting, and I definitely fall into that category. It is nothing for me to sit down to go through the process of designing, coding, debugging, and repeat for 8 hours, without realize it at all. It only speaks of my passion for my work, and my enjoyment in solving challenging problems.
Poster here who have noted about treating programmers more like people than equipment hit the nail right on the head. In my school, our proffessors warn us to avoid jobs that look as though the employers treat programmers as "code monkeys" (if you sat enough monkeys at computers typing C, how long would it take until you get MS Office?). At some of my best internships, and the job I have gone back full-time to, my section leader encourages his team to take regular breaks (which often involve heading back to an ongoing game of RISK), schedules frequent offsites/classes/excursions to get us out of the cubicles, and overall creates one of the healthiest work environments I've ever been in.
All that said, I shouldn't be to programmer biased. Not all programmers are great programmers who have mastered that mystical "flow". I could see a manager reading this article, trying all these things, and getting really burnt.
It's all a game of balance that definitely begins with treating employees like people, not equipment.
Under a very tight deadline, I once told a manager quite forcefully:
"Look, each of us has an obligation to the other here. Your obligation is to do everything you reasonably can to empower me and enable me to meet the deadline. My obligation is to do everything that I reasonably can to meet my commitment on this deadline and to inform you when there are things that you can do to improve my chances. Therefore, as part of my obligation, I have to inform you that by constantly interrupting me to ask me how it's going, you are breaking the concentration that I have spent several hours building and reducing my chances of meeting the deadline in the order of 2 or more hours* per interruption."**
He looked quite shocked at first but then seemed to summon his memories of his days in the trenches, apologized and backed off. We had a new understanding from that point on.
----
* 1/2 hour to cool off + 1 hour to re-build my mental state + 1/2 hour fudge ('cause we always gotta fudge ;)
**(This is what I said IIRC. It was some years ago and legends tend acquire new dimensions over time. It's also possible that I said something more concise like "quit f---ing bugging me, so I can get this done". I can't remember exactly now.)
Sigs are bad for your health.
What we have here is a classic case of "telling programmers what they want to hear". I wonder if this guy is selling something?
--sdem
I agree with this, and I don't.
I'm sure most programming in big business environments has become very sterile. In a Dilbert-esque setting, I can see where you're coming from.
Where I program, I'm not sure that holds true (though I'm well aware that the kind of programming that I do is somewhat atypical). There's an overall design, but programmers are given subsystems to implement. They're told what it has to do, but not necessaily HOW it has to be done. Each programmer at the company could complete the task, but I'm sure no two solutions would never be the same.
As for CS students learning things by rote: I was going to say that you're wrong, but then I thought about it and decided that you're partly correct again. I saw a lot of people with no love for computing get through computing science because they test really well. Me, I test like crap on a stick, so I had to actually learn the lessons of algorithmics and creative thinking that are the subtext in those classes. I think the majority of people that go through CS and never once think about any sort of research career path are the kind of boilerplate programmers that you're talking about. Someone that has some desire to discover something new will make a perfectly creative programmer in the real world, and it may happen more than you think.
Software - How Software Companies Die
By: Orson Scott Card
The environment that nutures creative programmers kills management and marketing types - and vice versa. Programming is the Great Game. It consumes you, body and soul. When you're caught up in it, nothing else matters. When you emerge into daylight, you might well discover that you're a hundred pounds overweight, your underwear is older than the average first grader, and judging from the number of pizza boxes lying around, it must be spring already. But you don't care, because your program runs, and the code is fast and clever and tight. You won. You're aware that some people think you're a nerd. So what? They're not players. They've never jousted with Windows or gone hand to hand with DOS. To them C++ is a decent grade, almost a B - not a language. They barely exist. Like soldiers or artists, you don't care about the opinions of civilians. You're building something intricate and fine. They'll never understand it.
BEEKEEPING
Here's the secret that every successful software company is based on: You can domesticate programmers the way beekeepers tame bees. You can't exactly communicate with them, but you can get them to swarm in one place and when they're not looking, you can carry off the honey. You keep these bees from stinging by paying them money. More money than they know what to do with. But that's less than you might think. You see, all these programmers keep hearing their parents' voices in their heads saying "When are you going to join the real world?" All you have to pay them is enough money that they can answer (also in their heads) "Geez, Dad, I'm making more than you." On average, this is cheap. And you get them to stay in the hive by giving them other coders to swarm with. The only person whose praise matters is another programmer. Less-talented programmers will idolize them; evenly matched ones will challenge and goad one another; and if you want to get a good swarm, you make sure that you have at least one certified genius coder that they can all look up to, even if he glances at other people's code only long enough to sneer at it. He's a Player, thinks the junior programmer. He looked at my code. That is enough. If a software company provides such a hive, the coders will give up sleep, love, health, and clean laundry, while the company keeps the bulk of the money.
OUT OF CONTROL
Here's the problem that ends up killing company after company. All successful software companies had, as their dominant personality, a leader who nurtured programmers. But no company can keep such a leader forever. Either he cashes out, or he brings in management types who end up driving him out, or he changes and becomes a management type himself. One way or another, marketers get control. But...control of what? Instead of finding assembly lines of productive workers, they quickly discover that their product is produced by utterly unpredictable, uncooperative, disobedient, and worst of all, unattractive people who resist all attempts at management. Put them on a time clock, dress them in suits, and they become sullen and start sabotaging the product. Worst of all, you can sense that they are making fun of you with every word they say.
SMOKED OUT
The shock is greater for the coder, though. He suddenly finds that alien creatures control his life. Meetings, Schedules, Reports. And now someone demands that he PLAN all his programming and then stick to the plan, never improving, never tweaking, and never, never touching some other team's code. The lousy young programmer who once worshiped him is now his tyrannical boss, a position he got because he played golf with some sphincter in a suit. The hive has been ruined. The best coders leave. And the marketers, comfortable now because they're surrounded by power neckties and they have things under control, are baffled that each new iteration of their software loses market share as the code bloats and the bugs proliferate. Got to get some better packaging. Yeah, that's it.
It seems to me that the "flow" the article discusses is not limited to programmers or artists; it can happen to anyone who is truly involved in a task that they love, in any area of endeavor.
I code. Admittedly, it's just PHP, a language of limited utility for anything but web-oriented tasks, but nonetheless a real programming language. I have felt that "flow" when working with PHP: you code fast, overcome obstacles fairly quickly, and it all just flies out of your head and into being. Then you blink and realize that it's been 10 hours since you sat down, and you haven't had anything to eat or drink since breakfast. It's glorious.
But PHP is just a hobby. I'm a medieval literature postgrad; I write papers analyzing tales written over a thousand years ago (my specialty is Old English). And I can tell you that when I really get going on a paper, I reach the same mental state as I described above: I sit, I type, and it flows. The thoughts I've been tumbling around coalesce miraculously into a full paper. Sometimes the flow lasts even into the "debug" stage where I have to go through and check to make sure that all of the footnotes are there, and that every comma, semicolon, and punctuation mark is in place, from the first sentence to the end of the bibliography.
For this reason, I believe that "flow" happens to anyone who is capable of becoming absorbed in a task. The type of task is probably important, though. I feel a bit flow-ish writing this post, because the topic is interesting and requires thought. But if you set me out as a lifeguard, say, over a pool full of people, I would never, ever achieve "flow". "Zoned out" maybe, but not "flowing" (which is bad news for the drowning guy in the deep end). On the other hand, repetitive physical labor -- setting bricks, knitting, making chain mail armor -- can be mentally liberating (in proper amounts).