The sooner the tech industry realizes that this sort of person is not an asset and that having too many of them around just drives others away, the better off it'll be.
That's not how things work.
I'm saying that their deep obsessiveness, and issues relating to being deeply obsessed, makes their organization as a whole write worse software. They sometimes write good code on their own, especially if they don't have to work with others, but usually they're a net negative.
Honestly, I don't know how this isn't obvious to anyone who's ever worked on a team.
I would agree with your original comment that you don't have to be obsessive, but without further substantial reasoning, xienze's position sounds like the more reasonable one here.
So they're possibly better at writing backend code.
Let's make an effort to keep them employed by finding positions they can succeed in instead of purging people at the first sign of personality traits we don't like (that they may not have been able to control in the first place).
1. When you are building the back end of an online shop you don't care if that shop is for women's (makeup shop) or men (guns shop). When you build breaks for cars you don't care if the car is for women's or men.
2. You don't build a product base only on the experience of one person. You go and ask your target demographics what they want from your product. I am a man but I can't speak for all men.
As someone who does actually love all this stuff so much that work doesnt start and hobby doesnt really stop... We meet and work with people like you all the time. We like the diversity. There are many ways to contribute to the end result and any smart company hires both of us.
But your resentment is mean spirited. Get over yourself. We are not driving any one away. From operations to sales we are all needed to make the engine work. But if you come here arguing that those who love their job should be fired so there is place for you without you trying so hard, that just silly. Here is the thing: from all disciplines i know there are people who love and breathe their job. If thats not the case in engineering for you, then you likely want to find the field that does make you that happy.
That might just be a smarter plan than trying to convince yourself by convincing us that in a field dominated by people who love it, you can be competitive while considering it just a safe career path. You'll just end up miserable.
What a tire fire all these threads are. And people are surprised they get flagged!
First paragraph is a claim that people who code in their spare time are liabilities rather than assets. Second paragraph is a claim that the tech industry as a whole should recognize this, and take steps to make sure there aren't too many around.
That's not actually arguing for firing (I mean, it might be arguing for that, but not necessarily), but it's at a minimum arguing for actively choosing non-hobby-programmers over hobby-programmers for programming jobs.
ralfn is not the one who turned this thread into a tire fire. If it is one, which I dispute, the culprits would be some combination of you and now me.
It's the people who don't do anything else but code that I've, in my experience, had real issues with - they might make great computer scientists, but as a group they're not very good in a team of software developers. Arrogance, problems cooperating with others, excessive nitpicking, 'engineer's disease', poor social skills...
I'm not saying you're guaranteed to have any or all of those problems if all you do 24/7 is code, but I've seen it one hell of a lot, and I'm perplexed why this type of person tends to be preferred over more well-rounded individuals. It's not like they're actually better at their jobs.
I'm not arguing for going through an organization and sacking everyone who codes on the weekend. But I strongly suspect that if interviewers didn't glorify the obsessive 24/7 coder, either deliberately or subconsciously as 'what a real developer looks like', we'd have both a much more diverse tech industry and a much more functional one.
As a Darwinist of sorts, I'm afraid that if this actually were true, we would be seeing some serious disruption of those nerds by much more functional diverse teams. The cat's been of the bag for so many years that somebody ought to have exploited it by now. But so far, it seems that one poster child example of a company which made tons of money bringing computing to the masses is Apple, under the lead of no one else but You Know Who, and (allegedly) with quite obsessive, arrogant, nitpicking and abrasive people working under him.
I'd like to send you over here: http://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/
And to the real-world examples of the market needing quite a long time to correct for sufficiently strong biases in the culture.
Software industry isn't the first or the last place you will see this.
The world as a whole is giant stack ranking system. Every thing from college admissions to interviews is basically a comparative process, sort of a close-to-merit ecosystem where those who put above average effort, get above average returns.
And hubris isn't new to tech. Doctors, Politicians, in fact hubris is a dominant psychological trait among top people in any field.
As for your claim itself, I think you have a good point, but you're a bit overextending its consequences, and ralfn's upthread response to you is right on.
I think you're totally right that diversity of opinion and interest is a super useful supplementary skill. And I strongly agree that a team needs to have that diversity on the product side to product useful products. And I agree that a team somewhat benefits from having not just a few product specialists who have that diversity; it's essential to have a few, but it's also helpful to have lots of people with diverse perspectives. And sure, being extremely tech focused (being an "obsessive wretch") is obviously inimical to that diversity. And yeah, there's some unreasonable glorification going on.
But I think there's also something reasonable about that glorification. Although deciding what to build is a huge part of the team's job, also building it is a huge part. Invariably the part that takes more person-hours, at least in a business large enough to have employees. And in my experience, the "obsessive wretches" actually do tend to be somewhat better at this part of the job. Not overwhelmingly better, but better. Not universally so, but as a tendency. That's just my observation from my medium-length career, and I accept your claim that you have different anecdata; if you have useful actual data I'm open to persuasion.
Moreover, very frequently in this industry we hire people who frankly are not currently knowledgeable enough to do the job we're hiring for, but we hire them anyway because it often works out, and we don't want to pay the asking price of the people who already know how to do the job we're hiring for. Call it good (it allows new entrants), call it bad (lots of wheel-reinvention, ageism, etc), but I allege that it's very common. So, who's going to learn faster? My bet is on the monomaniac; maybe this is unfounded. So, I think this is a rational reason to prefer the obsessives.
And I guess I should add that someone who has literally no other interests... okay, I'm with you. That person is likely to be a problem. But I will continue to favour people for whom outside study is one of their primary hobbies over people who do it a bit, and I'll continue to favour people who do it a bit over people who don't do it at all. And note that the example in TFA was not about someone with no other interests.... it was about one individual who did build a fibre-channel network over the weekend, and another individual who realized that they would never do so.
>No, it doesn't. It makes you one-dimensional and particularly poor at building products for others unlike yourself.
Translation - you are bad at your job
>The sooner the tech industry realizes that this sort of person is not an asset and that having too many of them around just drives others away, the better off it'll be. reply
Translation - we should get rid of these people who are not assets
When it's the Enemy, you seem eager to read between the lines for dark intent, but when an Ally says something like "poor at building products", "this sort of person is not an asset" and "having too many of them around just drives others away" you demand a precise, literal reading that somehow doesn't conclude that this is a call to fire, or not hire, the type of person described.
How is this not an abuse?
The HN software has code that literally looks for threads like this and penalizes them.