Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjackson | Hacker News Reader

I want my vendors to think of me in their customer-specific mindset, too. But I do not want my boss thinking about me as just another "resource" without unique skills and contributions.

I had a boss years ago who called us all "code monkeys" who were engaged in the process of "tickey-tackey" all day.

There is nothing quite so demoralizing as hearing your most creative work -- that you studied for 8 years in depth at a difficult university to be capable of performing -- described as "tickey tackey that monkeys could do."

Which is similar to the feeling programmers get when called "resources," IMO.

View on HN

It's completely disingenuous to conflate 1) referring to someone by the purpose for which you're interacting with them (e.g. "the barrista who is making me coffee," versus "Suzie, who is working at Starbucks now but is going to really make it big with her one-act four-hour one-woman play") and 2) using generic and insulting terms (e.g. "the telephone repairman," versus "the little shit").

"Resources" may be a terrible, insulting term. But the argument against it also applies to referring to them as "programmers" (which you did in your last sentence) rather than naming them one by one, talking about their favorite IDE and language, and their reasons for working on that particular program.

I notice you also refer to 'vendors' and 'a boss'. There would be a huge amount of wasted verbiage if you told me which vendors, which boss, what the vendor does on weekends, and how much the boss loves to fish. For the purpose of your story, that doesn't matter -- for the purpose of discussing programmers, the extraneous stuff is not important.

"Resource" is never the purpose for which you are interacting with someone. I'd never even dream of calling the barista "The Resource Who is Making Me Coffee."

While it may not be a straightforward leap from "Resource" to "Code Monkey," both labels are born from the same carelessness: a lack of regard for how the person to whom you're referring will perceive your evaluation of their relative worth.

I do agree with you that it can be taken way too far in the name of not hurting feelings. To spend too much time on each person's unique qualities in passing conversation is a time-waster.

We should pick words that acknowledge that such qualities exist. I think "resource" does not, and "programmer" is slightly better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com