Better Development Through Competition?

theodp writes "Among the tips Derek Sivers offers for how to hire a programmer to make your ideas happen is an intriguing one: hire more than one person to complete your first programming milestone, with the expectation that one will go bad, one will be so-so, and one will be great. 'Yes it means you're paying multiple times for this first milestone,' says Sivers, 'but it's worth it to find a good one.' It's not a new idea — the practice of pitting two different programmers against each other on the same task was noted three decades ago in Tracy Kidder's Soul of a New Machine — but one that never gained widespread acceptance. Should the programming code-off be adopted as a software development best practice?"

Comments

Re:Companies don't know

[wonkavader]

The word you want is "fungible" -- one programmer is exactly the same as any other. You can swap 'em around and get the same result.

This worked when you hired 7 year olds to run machines in the 1800's, and since those were the glory days for employers, they keep thinking that way.

Re:Wrong expectations

[Noughmad]

Good call. They should hire four programmers!

Why not up it to eleven?

Re:Practicality

[zippthorne]

Ahh, the "Survivor" model of programming.

Far better, I think, would be to hire the programmers you can afford, and if possible divide into competing groups for the first milestone, at which point, you pick the better idea, divide into new groups, and set those groups to work on the next milestone.

You can't run a business like a game show for very long without burning everyone out.