Slashdot Mirror
Are Googlers Too Smart For Their Own Good?
theodp writes "If you're a mere mortal, don't be surprised if your first reaction to Google Storage for Developers is 'WTF?!' Offering the kind of 'user-friendly' API one might expect from a bunch of computer science Ph.D.s, Google Storage even manages to overcomplicate the simple act of copying files. Which raises the question: Are Googlers with 'world-class programming skills' capable of producing straightforward, simple-to-use programming interfaces for ordinary humans?"
anything that is user facing should be able to be explained to a common 5 year old (hint if you have enough developers available then you should have access to at least one).
Now of course a bunch of "magic" could be going on in the background but then you should be able to use any common document set (which should be readable by a 7 year old) to figure out whats what. (again you most likely have access to one of these)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
I tend to put software developers into four groups:
1. Below average.
2. Average.
3. Above average.
4. Well above average.
Group #1 is obviously bad, but I also think group #3 is bad, and here's why.
Above average developers tend to create overly complex solutions, because hey...they're above average. They can understand it, no problem. They can maintain it, no problem. But their designs and code are difficult to maintain for below average and average developers, which make up the bulk of developers out there.
Well above average developers create designs and code with average developers in mind. They make sure their designs are as simple as they reasonably can be, so that it's easy to maintain and enhance later on.
Fear above average developers, because they create designs and code that only a small percentage of developers can reliably and comfortably maintain.
A truly "smart" person knows that almost everyone he meets is "dumber" than him. So he spends his life talking to people who are "dumber" which causes one of two reactions. He either becomes arrogant or he becomes humble. Arrogant is easy to explain. This arrogance is born of the knowledge that you are "better" than most of the people you work with.
Humble is harder. The humility comes from years of seeing what the "best" path is and trying to save people from their own stupidity and finally realizing that all the genius in the world is worthless if it doesn't help anyone. Humility is the knowledge that no matter how genius you are it is pointless if your genius is consumed in a self-serving intellectual Ouroboros.
I test in the top 2% for intelligence. This means 98% of the people I meet are "dumber" than I am. There are also a vast array of people far more intelligent than I am. People that make me look like a total moron. From this vantage I can see that without making my intelligence available or useful then all of my talents are a "chasing after the wind" and only so much "sound and fury" amounting to nothing. Such a rating is worthless and meaningless unless it yields a result in some context (evolutionarily or otherwise).
This last step toward humility requires a tiny bit more intelligence and wisdom than arrogance does.
Let's say Google hires the smartest 2% of programmers on the planet. The reaction will probably either be arrogance or humility. So if this is the product of genius what is it? Inaccessible arrogance? Then they are using the wrong metric for intelligence and don't have programmers that are smart enough in the right ways.
Humility is harder. Humility is precious. Humility requires real intelligence.
[signature]