Slashdot Mirror
Classic Gerald Weinberg Essay Reprinted
danielread writes "Programmer abuse has been a popular topic recently, especially within the gaming industry. However, excessive overtime and overwork are not new problems for software professionals. Twenty years ago, acclaimed author Gerald Weinberg wrote an essay called 'Personal Chemistry and the Healthy Body,' which is as relevant for programmers today as it was two decades ago. Given this topic's recent resurgence, Mr. Weinberg was generous enough to let developer.* Magazine reprint this classic essay."
It's not just computer-savvy geeks anymore. The trend is reaching into the mainstream now, with things like IM and cell phones.
Take a walk around a college campus or a mall some time. If you see someone that is not walking with another person, they will usually have a cell phone in hand. You may wonder how that is anti-social, but the reason they have a cell phone is to hide behind it. Just like geeks hide behind the keyboard, "ordinary" people hide behind cell phones to avoid conversation with new and strange people.
I'd bet good money that an increasing number of the people walking around with cell phones have anxiety when not using it. I would also wager that the act of just using a cell phone contributes to developing anxiety and anti-social behavior. Much like overusage of a computer does.
Dijkstra Considered Dead
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I find it somewhat disheartening that so many "geeks" are actually proud of the basement dwelling stereotype they've acquired.
:-]
Why not?? I was a "basement dweller" for a long time. OK, I didn't live in my parents' basement, but I spent most of my waking time doing computers. 10 years of that professionally and two cycles of hot market for computer contractors, I earned and saved enough money to retire at the age of 35. With my new found time, I started socializing, found a wife and started a family (and got back into work part-time to cover the bills comfortably)... Yeah, being a geek is awful... just awful...
No, rules without reasons help a person develop healthy habits and to benefit from them before he learns the reasons for them. That can come in its own good time.
It rarely does any good to try to explain to a child why he should eat his spinach, you just get him to eat it. By the time he understands why it's good for him he's in the habit of eating it and has benefited from the nutrition in the meantime.
A novice programmer might not understand why GOTOs are to be reserved for a small number of special situations, but you impose standards enforced via peer review that makes him avoid them when unnecessary anyway. By the time he understands why they're undesireable he's accustomed to coding without them to the point where it's become second nature, and in the meantime the code he's written is more maintainable by others.
Insisting that people learn the reasons for moral (or otherwise desireable) behavior before they adopt those behaviors is simply not workable in the real world.
And the brethren went away edified.
- Many school teachers find their reward in working with pupils rather than large salaries or advancing in administrative roles.
- Directors like Peter Jackson (of Lord of the Rings) find their satisfaction in telling their story rather than advancing in superficial Hollywood circles or sleeping every day.
- Many nurses and medical technicians are attracted more to the ability to heal and ease others physical pain than large doctor salaries or authoring articles for journals
- Many same-sex couples find the loving bond of a relationship to be worth the social stigma, lack of legal recognition, and difficulty in producing off-spring.
While this fellow makes some good points as to how to "fit in" to the superficial business world, a wise person will sit down and decide whether fitting in will actually help in advancing the goals and satisfactions of their life. It's fortunate that different people have different goals and if you need the money of a tech lead or team manager to meet yours then definitely pay attention to this advice. But if your goals and life priorities are different, think about what you can do to help meet them and whether or not this advice still applies.[I've never understood why the IT industry has been so adverse (sic) to Unions?] Because unions usually force collective bargaining and oppose pay for merit. Programmers are mostly individualists and think that they're worth more than the next guy.
Well how much longer until globalization changes that self-perception? Unions grew during the first half of the century because blue-collar labor was cheap and plentiful. The workers had no individual bargaining power because their skills were a dime-a-dozen. "Professionals" on the other hand were harder to come by and could rely on their relative rareness alone to keep them from being abused.
But globalization has turned brains into a cheap commodity. Asia is cranking out graduates the way that Henry Ford learned how to crank out automobiles, turning cars into a commodity to be had by all instead of the luxury item they were before that.
Unions take money from your paycheck to pay their own staff and to (often illegally) siphon money into left-wing political programs. They are a net drain on the economy.
A small fee is better than zero job. Many other careers have built-in protections. Lawyers have law-school quotas for example to protect them from a flood of cheap foreign legal geniouses. If they can have protection from raw cheap-labor foreign competition, why can't we? Why are ONLY THEY entitled to protection?
Should we have cheap programmers and expensive lawyers? Why? What is the fairness or logic for that? Businesses can lower their costs and sell products for cheaper if their legal rates were lower. And cheaper products are magically going to make us all better off, remember? So, lets globally fuck lawyers also so that our products are cheaper. OKay?
Table-ized A.I.
Because unions usually force collective bargaining and oppose pay for merit. Programmers are mostly individualists and think that they're worth more than the next guy.
Why is this modded "flamebait"? That seemed like a dead-on comment. I have never observed much sympathy for unions among programmers, and an individualistic streak would appear to be the reason.
Now my own insight into the effect of 10+ hour days:
I work at a company where it is the norm for developers to work overtime. On any given day, probably 50% of developers will stay late. Now the question is, will this help or hurt your career.
I can see no evidence of anyone's career being held back because they worked too hard. On the other hand, does it help your career? The answer appears to be yes, but not by very much. Most people get promoted either because they are the most technically competant or because they do the best job of promoting themselves to the boss. Working extra-hard may get you a raise or some stock options, but it won't get you promoted.
The reason is because the people in positions of authority are the ones who are called upon to exercise good judgement. Working overtime is a sign of dedication, but it doesn't do anything to prove why you should be the one to make the tough decisions.
-a