I've encountered good and bad coders of all genders but I have noticed that they tend to be motivated by different factors. Male programmers are motivated by proving their ability to their peers. Female programmers tend to be motivated more by praise from their superiors. There are of course exceptions to both cases; I don't particularly feel like I have anything to prove to my co-workers myself, but a lot of programmers do, especially young guys.
Personal IM also eliminates the distraction of personal phone calls.
Spouses need to talk to each other about things sometimes. My wife has IM at her office and we chat from time to time during the day. It's no different than if she were to call me a couple of times a day, and is much less obtrusive to my work - she can ask me something that isn't urgent via an asynchronous mode of communication.
At my job before this, it was frowned upon to use IM for anything, though not actually blocked in a systematic way. Just due to the need for personal phone calls where an IM would be ideal, I was less productive. I find dropping everything to answer my phone and kick my brain into verbal mode to start talking to be much more disruptive to my thought processes than typing.
That said, a lot of geeks are simply prima donnas about being interrupted. If you're not thinking about a matter of life or death there is no train of thought that is too important to be interrupted; the interruption method is a non-factor.
If a platform won't scale, it is by definition not good for production usage, unless your volume is low and you have no intention or hope of growing in usage.
Twitter outgrew its platform. It happens. If you're lucky, anyway.
I'm more in favor of your co-worker's position. Code always tends toward sucking over time, and the longer the time, the more probability of hacks. Eventually your beautiful clean object model will become hacked and coupled and your shop will require specialized domain knowledge to maintain it. That's unavoidable unless you rewrite every so often.
You could also make an argument that "clean architecture" is Taylorism in disguise.
Hicks, Carlin, and Bruce are all overrated, just like Douglas Adams, the majority of the output of Monty Python, and the concept of open source. Opinions are a pain in the ass, aren't they?:)
When you accept that substance is always a repeat, then only style - the surface - matters. You stop saying anything of substance because it really doesn't matter. Have you read any recent critically acclaimed work of literary fiction? Very little of it has anything of substance to say, it's all about who can write the flashiest pseudo-Pynchonian network of references and allusions. That's the wonder that's missing. Nobody tries to make big statements anymore because everyone that matters has decided that they've all been made, and they'd rather get into weird etymology.
It is valuable in that sense. In my opinion, it's depressing to realize that humanity has now 'seen it all' and that nothing truly new will ever be created in the realm of fiction. It means that any work of fiction that you read or experience will have the taint of someone else's experience on it, somehow.
The romantic notion is that each human life is a unique experience, but deriving a generic roadmap for fiction proves that it is not. That, to me, is depressing.
You miss the point. The ability to distill fiction down to these basic principles is proof that it's impossible to write or read anything that's truly original. How depressing.
Critical analysis like "Hero With a Thousand Faces" has taken all of the fun out of fiction. For writers, now that everyone knows how a story works, what's the point in writing any more? For readers, if you can recognize the point at which you're being manipulated, how can you suspend disbelief?
I don't think it's any coincidence that rise the popularity of criticism has coincided with a fall in the popularity of the things that are being criticized. So people have moved on to interactive entertainments.
... Until your child or other loved one dies of Dengue Fever or Malaria.
I always wonder how you hardcore Darwinists would react if you woke up to find your infant child dead of SIDS. I'm imagining a mighty shrug and "Oh well, kid must have been weak anyway. C'mon honey, let's go make another one!"
It's great when you get a superstar, but you'll drive yourself nuts looking for them. Either they'll find you if they think the work is good enough, or you'll luck out and get one who doesn't know that it gets any better.
That said, if you're writing stuff like generic CRUD apps on five year old Java frameworks, chances are you're not going to attract superstars. Superstars want cool things to play with. They can work anywhere. Give them a reason to work for you.
If you insist on looking for superstars, be sure you're getting real superstars and not just guys who are good at job interviews.
Sure, social games sell - there are more extroverts than introverts, statistically. I'm only speaking for myself. It took me a long time to accept that I prefer to be alone most of the time, actually.
Games have always been about competition, one way or another. Those games which are only single-player are, in a way, an aberration--sure, Final Fantasy games are wildly popular, but the people who buy 'em tend to like the 'interactive movie' aspect.
Yes, this is true. I'd rather play a game like Mass Effect than sit through any kind of passive entertainment. The interactivity adds a level of entertainment that no movie can match.
People need the social aspect of games. They need to compete against each other. If you don't have some sort of socialization and competition in a game, it's not going to sell nearly as well as one that has those aspects.
I think you're projecting. You may need the socialization and the beer and pretzels aspect to enjoy a game, but if I'm playing a game, I'm doing it to avoid people, not to spend more time around them than I already have to. I've been there and done that w/r/t being a socially oriented person and it just doesn't interest me anymore. Different strokes, etc.
If there's anything the last eight years should have taught us, it's that the President SHOULD be all talk. For all of his faults, Bush was able to push his agenda, and look where it got us.
The President is the Chief Executive. An executive's job is to fly the flag and make tough decisions, while their staff actually gets things done. One of the main reasons that I believe Obama could make a great president is that he has the capability of attracting the best cabinet in years.
I've met quite a few geeks that aren't into video games, but they were all into some aspect of computing in the same way ("wow, this API is really neat!" or "whoa, the new version of CUPS kicks ass!")
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that changing clothes only worked if your wanted level was 2 stars.
I've encountered good and bad coders of all genders but I have noticed that they tend to be motivated by different factors. Male programmers are motivated by proving their ability to their peers. Female programmers tend to be motivated more by praise from their superiors. There are of course exceptions to both cases; I don't particularly feel like I have anything to prove to my co-workers myself, but a lot of programmers do, especially young guys.
Personal IM also eliminates the distraction of personal phone calls.
Spouses need to talk to each other about things sometimes. My wife has IM at her office and we chat from time to time during the day. It's no different than if she were to call me a couple of times a day, and is much less obtrusive to my work - she can ask me something that isn't urgent via an asynchronous mode of communication.
At my job before this, it was frowned upon to use IM for anything, though not actually blocked in a systematic way. Just due to the need for personal phone calls where an IM would be ideal, I was less productive. I find dropping everything to answer my phone and kick my brain into verbal mode to start talking to be much more disruptive to my thought processes than typing.
That said, a lot of geeks are simply prima donnas about being interrupted. If you're not thinking about a matter of life or death there is no train of thought that is too important to be interrupted; the interruption method is a non-factor.
I bet she really gets hot when you put on your robe and wizard hat
Isn't that what they call "emergent design"
That would be impossible, because Visa is everywhere you want to be
If a platform won't scale, it is by definition not good for production usage, unless your volume is low and you have no intention or hope of growing in usage.
Twitter outgrew its platform. It happens. If you're lucky, anyway.
I'm more in favor of your co-worker's position. Code always tends toward sucking over time, and the longer the time, the more probability of hacks. Eventually your beautiful clean object model will become hacked and coupled and your shop will require specialized domain knowledge to maintain it. That's unavoidable unless you rewrite every so often.
You could also make an argument that "clean architecture" is Taylorism in disguise.
Hicks, Carlin, and Bruce are all overrated, just like Douglas Adams, the majority of the output of Monty Python, and the concept of open source. Opinions are a pain in the ass, aren't they? :)
When you accept that substance is always a repeat, then only style - the surface - matters. You stop saying anything of substance because it really doesn't matter. Have you read any recent critically acclaimed work of literary fiction? Very little of it has anything of substance to say, it's all about who can write the flashiest pseudo-Pynchonian network of references and allusions. That's the wonder that's missing. Nobody tries to make big statements anymore because everyone that matters has decided that they've all been made, and they'd rather get into weird etymology.
I do those things. I just don't pretend that they're special or that they make me unique.
In fact, I don't think about the originality of those things at all, other than the originality of art that I experience or create.
While I am not his scholarly peer, I disagree with McLuhan's assertion. It's WHAT you say that's important, not how you say it.
Ah, internet tough guy fun time. From someone who doesn't even have the balls to make up a fake name for an account, no less.
I just think that the drive to intellectualize everything has driven a lot of wonder from the world. Life sucks that way.
Those are tools, not content.
It is valuable in that sense. In my opinion, it's depressing to realize that humanity has now 'seen it all' and that nothing truly new will ever be created in the realm of fiction. It means that any work of fiction that you read or experience will have the taint of someone else's experience on it, somehow.
The romantic notion is that each human life is a unique experience, but deriving a generic roadmap for fiction proves that it is not. That, to me, is depressing.
If any part of it is unoriginal, it is not truly original.
You miss the point. The ability to distill fiction down to these basic principles is proof that it's impossible to write or read anything that's truly original. How depressing.
Critical analysis like "Hero With a Thousand Faces" has taken all of the fun out of fiction. For writers, now that everyone knows how a story works, what's the point in writing any more? For readers, if you can recognize the point at which you're being manipulated, how can you suspend disbelief?
I don't think it's any coincidence that rise the popularity of criticism has coincided with a fall in the popularity of the things that are being criticized. So people have moved on to interactive entertainments.
Just random observations...
In Korea, only old people use Babbage Engines.
... Until your child or other loved one dies of Dengue Fever or Malaria.
I always wonder how you hardcore Darwinists would react if you woke up to find your infant child dead of SIDS. I'm imagining a mighty shrug and "Oh well, kid must have been weak anyway. C'mon honey, let's go make another one!"
It's great when you get a superstar, but you'll drive yourself nuts looking for them. Either they'll find you if they think the work is good enough, or you'll luck out and get one who doesn't know that it gets any better.
That said, if you're writing stuff like generic CRUD apps on five year old Java frameworks, chances are you're not going to attract superstars. Superstars want cool things to play with. They can work anywhere. Give them a reason to work for you.
If you insist on looking for superstars, be sure you're getting real superstars and not just guys who are good at job interviews.
Most useful post I've read on here in a while.
Sure, social games sell - there are more extroverts than introverts, statistically. I'm only speaking for myself. It took me a long time to accept that I prefer to be alone most of the time, actually.
Games have always been about competition, one way or another. Those games which are only single-player are, in a way, an aberration--sure, Final Fantasy games are wildly popular, but the people who buy 'em tend to like the 'interactive movie' aspect.
Yes, this is true. I'd rather play a game like Mass Effect than sit through any kind of passive entertainment. The interactivity adds a level of entertainment that no movie can match.
People need the social aspect of games. They need to compete against each other. If you don't have some sort of socialization and competition in a game, it's not going to sell nearly as well as one that has those aspects.
I think you're projecting. You may need the socialization and the beer and pretzels aspect to enjoy a game, but if I'm playing a game, I'm doing it to avoid people, not to spend more time around them than I already have to. I've been there and done that w/r/t being a socially oriented person and it just doesn't interest me anymore. Different strokes, etc.
If there's anything the last eight years should have taught us, it's that the President SHOULD be all talk. For all of his faults, Bush was able to push his agenda, and look where it got us.
The President is the Chief Executive. An executive's job is to fly the flag and make tough decisions, while their staff actually gets things done. One of the main reasons that I believe Obama could make a great president is that he has the capability of attracting the best cabinet in years.
So if you joined Opus Dei would you have to start writing COBOL?
I've met quite a few geeks that aren't into video games, but they were all into some aspect of computing in the same way ("wow, this API is really neat!" or "whoa, the new version of CUPS kicks ass!")