Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukev | Hacker News Reader

Wow. I guess I'm completely different from Jeff.

I have no need whatsoever for a "coding buddy." I'm considerably more comfortable working on a project solo. Even with a good team, I hate the coordination overhead.

I can, of course, and good team skills are important. I'm not saying that. But the coordination costs of software development increase super-linearly, so I tend to prefer using the minimum number of people that can possibly do a job. The break-even point is around 4-5 - after that, adding more people makes things slower, unless you can split the project into autonomous chunks.

View on HN

My order of preference:

Working with better programmers than me > Working solo > Working with others

I guess it is a common preference

It is. I agree with you but if you're working with programmers better than you which one of these three is the situation from their perspective? At least some of the better programmers have to be willing to bend on this or you never work with anyone better.

You only need to perceive that the other programmers are better, they don't actually need to be that way. And given that competent people generally underrate their abilities [1], you could have a team of equally highly skilled people who all think they are working with a team that is generally better than them. I actually think this would be an ideal situation.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

They don't have to be better. What is "better" anyway? More efficient algorithms? More normalized data? Fewer bugs?

For me, it's about experiences and perspectives. When I work with other programmers who have unique approaches to problems that help me work more efficiently, I enjoy working with them.

I also enjoy working with less experienced programmers who are willing to learn and practice new, more efficient methods.

I really dislike working with programmers who think they are awesome, but are really clueless. I try to help them, but their pride gets in the way. It's funny when they try to school me on stuff. I just don't have time for that. I feel bad for their clients.

But sometimes I run across people who know little tricks or constructs and I'm like, Wow, that's awesome, teach me more!

I'm with you that 'better' is highly subjective, and in the case of inexperienced and wanting to learn vs any amount experience and excessive pride I'll take inexperienced any day. Technology is too diverse and filled with rapid change to ever think you don't need to be open to new ideas and improvement.

Given how many degrees of freedom (knowledge of language, operating system, data structures, IDE/git, testing, browsers/JS, database/network/web service dependencies etc) I think most experienced devs will have something to offer you, especially the ones your "equal"

And i think it's great to be able to dictate code out loud. And it's a lot easier on your wrists.

Well, then I suppose I would need to learn as much as I can to leverage with the better programmers or at least don't bother them to the point they start thinking "Oh, shit, I would be better programming solo than with this moron!"

I think it's Jeff's preference too -- it's just that he places a whole lot more people in the first group.

And it sometimes seems very difficult to explain to the management types that adding people to the project will not make it go any faster.

Oh, no... they don't add people. They add "resources."

Saw this in a software as well recently. There was a grid/table for adding/removing employees. But the title said "Resources".

Yet they sure don't like being referred to as "Powerpoint resources".

Even though it was 15 years ago, I still vividly remember the disquiet I felt the first time I heard the term "human resources". It felt so Soylent Green to me.

Even though he's not universally popular around here, I'm going to admit to liking Seth Godin's "Let's call it the talent department" argument: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/02/marketing-hr...

...and most of the time the "resources" are aggregated into "full time equivalents." :-(

Vespene gas.

Just give them a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_law

One too many s's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_law

Weird, I cut and pasted that link. Oh well, edited, thanks.

I would love a coding buddy.

At my current work, I am the only programmer in an office of designers and sales. We (I) make CMS and other custom systems for clients. We really want to move to a generalized platform instead of one-off custom systems, but due to a number of issues, we can't.

One of those main issues is that there is no one like a programming buddy to "talk shop" with. I feel I am an OK coder, but everyone gets those times when they think "Should I implement this with A, or use B? Does this need to be extensible, and if so, to what degree?"

These are questions that usually cannot be answered by someone who is not deeply involved in the project, and someone who knows what the resource costs are for implementing features, as well as the cost for needing to implement those features down the line.

Agreed , having a buddy really helps get things in perspective. Moreover, I work in a startup where direction of things get changed really fast. Not sure having remote people in this type of scenario will work.

But you won't go so far alone! You can't code the whole StackExchange engine solo. You need a buddy (may be buddies). He/they should be smart, love code (love his/their work). It doesn't matter if he's not working in the same office as you, so you telecommute. That's what Jeff explains in his blog post.

Adding more people to a team because the team has more responsibilities than one person can handle is one thing. Needing "coding buddies" because you're lonely (which is what Jeff made it sound like) is another.

I can of course work on a team when the project is beyond the scope of a single developer. I prefer to work alone, since that entails exactly zero coordination overhead.

I think it may come down to the complexity of a project. For something non-trivial simply having someone to bounce ideas off of can make a big difference in one's overall efficiency, and thus probably happiness.

I agree, but I will also say that you can almost always find ways to get more done with more people. For example, it's easy to break up a project into code, css, html, javascript. That's four people right there. You could also have a graphics person drawing icons or cool backgrounds. You could have a database person. At some point you'll need a networking guru, marketer...

It's easy to get into the trap of thinking it's all about code, but there are lots of ways to add people. Sometimes, coders don't want to add people, because it's one more person asking them to code something. Coders often don't know how to push back and say, "This is what I'm working on, this is what I need you to do."

Every answer to an IT problem is "It Depends." In this case, the question of "Does adding more people make the project go faster or better?" is "It depends."

This question can't be answered with a general absolute.

"For example, it's easy to break up a project into code, css, html, javascript."

That sounds awful. That's three people who have to coordinate in order to display a new data element, and a fourth if the new data element has any kind of interactive functionality.

It's much better to break the project up into functionally independent pieces, and have developers who can work with all of the technologies each piece touches. You're much more likely to lower coordination overhead that way.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think it could be helpful for me to have a "coding buddy" to share things with, someone who is not involved in my project. It would be kind of nice to have someone to share particularly clever code snippets with, or to help motivate each other by being able to proudly relate the process you're making in development. At first I thought that's what Jeff was going to talk about.

As far as the actual programming, yes, I'd prefer to do it alone. I love being able to make major decisions (think: changing an internal API) without having to consult with someone.

Just curious: have you historically in your career worked mostly alone/remote, or in offices? Or somewhere in between?

Mostly in offices. I like it ok - ironically, it tends to reduce overhead because I can swivel my chair to ask a question rather than waiting for an email or IM response.

We all have headphones that we wear as a "do not disturb" signal. I feel most productive on days when I can dive in and wear my headphones for most of the day.

I think I'd like working by myself if given the chance, but I've always worked for fairly traditional companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com