Ask YC: "Rock Star" Job Titles | Hacker News Reader

Ask YC: "Rock Star" Job Titles

72 pointsiamdave121 comments

So someone mentioned to me the option of working full-time for a period of time on a very exciting project. The cost benefits would simply yield supplementary income, nothing super spectacular, so not getting the gig doesn't immediately mean I'll be shit out of luck with money.

But then I saw the job post and it said "ROCK STAR Developer" and immediately I didn't want to work for this company. I was asked why by a third party, and I explained how the whole cliche of calling people ninjas and rockstars is pointlessly chic, and trivializes what you want the person to do because their name "looks" hip and trendy.

And dear god I know one thing if I know anything: trendy fails to deliver.

Anyone else here have an opinion on the whole "rock star" job industry mentality?

View on HN

I totally agree 100%. If I see rockstar or ninja, I skip right past your ad.

You want to get my attention? Tell me you're looking for a professional, and you're going to treat me like one. I want to know that I get 8 hours a week to work on opensource. I want to know that you're looking for craftsman, not ego maniacs. Mostly, I want to know that I'm not working with a group of people that saw the word rockstar and thought to themselves "Oh, rockstars huh? That's totally describing me."

Also, please please please don't tell me you have funding from a "Top Tier" VC. It's a sure fire way to convince me that you care more about your ego than running a successful company. Who the fuck cares who funded you? I don't care who, I only care that you're going to be around for a long time. And, you're going to consider anyone that gives you a ton of money to be "Top Tier", so it's completely meaningless anyway.

  "I want to know that I get 8 hours a week to work on opensource"

You wouldn't work at a closed source company?

edit: i read 8-hours-a-day -- sorry. that is somewhat reasonable.

The unreasonable side comes from the inability to create hours. You can only add work. Side projects are always additive, unless you can stop work on a core project to do the side project. That's often bad for business, unless you're Guido.

The solution is to just work more to make up the hours. Most people don't want to hear that though, because they like the idea of getting a gift of choice from a company.

Any company that leverages open source software should make an effort to donate back to the community, even if the core of their software is closed source. Use Linux? Python? Emacs? Firefox?

Allowing your employees to donate some time towards open source projects is probably a good way to attract talent. Advertising for "rockstar ninja" positions is not.

While I agree that it's a much better way to attract talent, I'm going to say (as an OSS contributor myself) that unless it's already significantly into its funding cycle, a startup where you've got time to spend on random OSS stuff that doesn't directly benefit the company is probably focusing on the wrong things.

A startup where the co-founders have time to work on random OSS stuff is probably working on the wrong things. A startup where employees can spend 20% of their time hacking on OSS or side projects is likely doing just fine. I would be more worried about a startup that expects or demands that employees work 40+ hours. It either means that it's being run by suit monkeys that don't understand how programmers work or has poor project management that requires a constant crunch mode.

Umm...Do you only work 8 hours a week?

Seems like he's saying he's passionate about Open Source and wants that to be part of his job, not that he won't work on anything else. There are lots of people in the world who've learned that working on proprietary code means you say "goodbye" to it when you leave the company, whether you like it or not, and want to make sure they don't have to do that in the future. They've also learned that wholly proprietary companies are sometimes bitches about contributing to Open Source software even outside of business hours and on your own time and equipment!

If you're working for a company on Open Source software, you get to keep tabs on that code for the rest of your days, sending patches, if you like, etc. It's a major selling point for some of the best developers I've ever known--in fact, the very best developers I've known generally work on only Open Source software (so I'm excluding myself from this categorization of "very best", since I work on some proprietary software in addition to my predominantly Open Source work).

My mistake in reading his comment.

Side projects don't have to be additive - they could be something that's on the critical path for your main product and yet not intricately tied to your proprietary code. The decision is not "Can employees spend 20% of their time working on open-source?", but "Can 20% of the code that we already have to write be open-sourced profitably." I suspect that for many companies, the brand-building benefits of open-source and its effect on attracting top developers more than makes up for the chance that someone will take your open-source code and build a competitor. (Particularly since the best candidates for open-sourcing are low-level commodity libraries that somebody will write anyway.)

You're right. My comment is directed only at true side projects, not real work that could be opens sourced.

Even for true side projects, the solution is to make sure your project schedule doesn't depend on everyone working a strict 40 hours. Having time set aside to do some OSS hacking every week is actually likely to lead to less time wasted with other, likely less productive activities.

You also never know when one of those completely unrelated side projects will come in handy.

I usually ignore almost all the text in a job ad, because the vast majority of them all say the same thing. You want my attention? Give me an interesting puzzle to solve.

Actually, I find that the coding questions a company gives you can say a lot about the company. I really liked FriendFeed's interview problems, even though I struggled with them, because I saw them and went "Wow, these two questions test for nearly everything you need to know about a candidate, and do so with really simple problem descriptions." That's elegance - doing a lot with a little. While with some company's problems, you gotta wonder why they bother.

(That applies to some of the interview questions I asked at my last employer...damn, I was an idiot. But nobody else was asking any coding questions.)

Out of curiosity, where can I view FriendFeed's interview problems? I'd like to see them and gauge my current state.

Apply to them and get through the initial phone screen. (And don't take the job I want ;-P.) I'm not sure if they're public.

I am tired of the puzzle approach to recruiting.

Ultimately it is nothing but an upfront investment I have to make just to gain an interview, without a guarantee for a job. How would you like a job ad that read "to apply, send us 1000$ in cash"?

What, like college? ;-)

The advantage of places with puzzles is that everyone else had to go through them too (you hope; if it's just you, something's wrong). That keeps the bar high and ensures you won't be working with idiots.

Most worthwhile things require some up-front investment without a guaranteed payoff. Finance means putting the money up now for a hopefully higher return later. Education requires that you study now for skills later. Startups require that you build something now and hope you can get people to pay for it later. (Well, not always, but the bootstrap approach of finding a customer first requires that the customer pay up first and then take on the risk that you can't deliver.)

The trick is on doing due-diligence on the job first and making sure it's something worth investing in.

I don't know, maybe rather than wasting time on random puzzles, it would be a better investment of time to create some cool application as a demo? I don't think any startup would require dhh or pg to solve some puzzles before considering their job applications.

With college also, you get something in return for your investment (hopefully) - skills.

Of course if you just feel like chilling, why not choose some job puzzles.

You're welcome to write a few books and become well-known for your business or programming acumen as part of your investment of time early on for future payoff.

What about a "great hacker"? Here is a position we advertised in a local LUG. While writing it up I kept asking myself if I would reply to an email like this. Feel free to take it apart:

http://lists.clug.org.za/pipermail/clug-work/2008-July/00062...

It's a tiny thing, but in your introductory paragraph you use [1] twice where the second instance should likely read [2].

It was a hidden test: we only hire people that spot this. Joking, of course.

Not only notice this - how would you know? They also have to be anal enough to tell you.

Pretty good listing.

I noticed that the posting following yours was looking for a 'Python Ninja and Sensei'. What's next? Python Sumo?

Job ads are usually full of cliches. The interesting thing to me is how much they've have changed. Ten years ago it was "team player." Now it's "rockstar." Silly as it is, that's at least a sign of progress. It means employers have now realized that you want the smartest programmers, rather than obedient ones.

I suspect Google's example is the main reason for this change. Or evolution.

So from your perspective the companies that use "rockstar" and similar terms are probably better for hackers than a standard job posting? Since they are at least looking for the right type of programmers... I can see that perspective.

It's always possible that some horrible HR person posted the job. I've talked to some horrible HR people at Microsoft and Google in the past (when they were "cool" places to work with super smart types).

I think the most obvious move is to interview and talk to the people you will be working for/with. In many cases the specific project or team is as important as the company.

The job ad is just to get that initial interest. To get you to commit to sending a resume or taking a phone call.

So, smartest programmers = rockstars? Highly doubtful.

Silly as it is, that's at least a sign of progress. It means employers have now realized that you want the smartest programmers, rather than obedient ones.

Yeah but that seems to be what PG is saying here.

I used to love reading John Carmack's finger-based blog (flog?). "finger @idsoftware.com" still yields the company directory listing (not sure if it's still up-to-date). With the exception of the CEO, everyone has a simple, functional title like Programmer or Artist. The humility and understatement implicit in the listing -- John Carmack, Programmer -- is something that more companies and individuals should aspire to. He isn't a rock star, ninja, or even an engineer, architect, or developer. He's just a programmer. One of the best.

Engineer seems as humble as programmer to me.

To me, "engineer" and "architect" are terms originally pulled from other disciplines -- perhaps as an attempt to lend credence to the seemingly less substantial act of mere "programming." John Carmack and id software, to me, represent the disavowal of all pretense, the refusal to seek the respectability of more historically established fields. They are programmers and they are proud.

I use 'engineer' because I do other things than programming (my job title is 'Technical Specialist'). Programming, systems administartion, writing processes for the software and reviewing architectural designs.

Everything I do pretty much falls into either software or electrical (hardware) engineering, at a higher or lower level depending on the job. I don't think of mechanical and structural engineers as having a monopoly on the term.

I am reminded of how at Bell Labs/Lucent, all the geek jobs had the title "Member of the Technical Staff" or "Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff".

I like to use the term "famously good". Unfortunately, that sets the bar extremely high. Not as high as it seems, though, since I mean, "famous in our segment of the market or for working with our preferred technologies". e.g. They've written one or more books on the topic, they headed up a popular FOSS project in the area or in the language, they wrote the definitive implementation of a really interesting concept, they have code in our language implementation (where language for us is Perl and JavaScript--so patches in the Firefox JavaScript engine or Perl 5 or Perl 6 are interesting indicators), etc. We'd even consider blogging to be a "famous" trait...though we'd want to see some code.

So, by that definition there are at least 50 people on HN that I'd hire without hesitation. And by that definition, I've worked with and for at least a couple dozen famously good people in my ten years in the industry (and the longer I think about it, the longer the list gets).

Interestingly, when I read "Rock Star Developer", I think, "Will work your ass off, get no equity, and get salary on par with the industry average." And when I think, "famously good", I think, "Will expect salary that is commensurate with output, will expect to work on interesting projects, and has his/her pick of jobs." And yet, the latter is who I want to hire, because I know the difference it makes in quality and productivity. If I can hire a famously good hacker for about 1.5 times the industry average, I'd consider it a good deal.

But I use the term because I know what it means...I'm not sure if it'd be meaningful to folks reading our job ads. So I'd probably be more explicit about what we're looking for.

"ROCK STAR Developer" is probably a synonym for an underpaid, overworked developers ;). They can't pay you with money so they pay you with empty superlatives.

Meh... after working with a team of 20 developers for a few months, I could very clearly tell you who are the rock stars and who are not. Particularly in software development, some people are just unbelievably better than others.

I'm more of a roadie.

Do they still get groupies?

I find it funny that, typically, these companies want 'rock stars,' but are unwilling to pay a commiserate rate.

If you really believe you want a star, say John Resig or someone similar, you better have a kick-ass project and be prepared to pay for him ... otherwise, you're just hoping you can get someone good on the cheap.

commiserate (http://definr.com/commiserate)

     v : to feel or express sympathy or compassion [syn: sympathize]

I think you meant a "commensurate rate" :-)

Work environment is also a big issue. I've known great developers (a few of which have written code every Python developer uses every day) who've made their employment decisions based on how they'll be treated, who they'll be working with, and with what tools they'll be working (and even what they'll be working on....Open Source development has a strong allure for many developers, beyond mere money). Aeron chairs have a reputation for being a "boom era boondoggle", but if you don't provide a good chair, you won't keep a good developer sitting for long. Great recent hardware to work on is a given. Big monitors, a given. Whatever software and hardware they need to be comfortable: trackball or fancy mouse, weird keyboard, monitor stand, etc. Likewise for snacks and their favorite beverages.

As a startup, I'm running cheap. But, when it comes time to hire folks, I'm stocking the damned fridge with the best stuff money can buy, buying great chairs and huge monitors, and anything else I can to make working for me and with me the best work experience of their lives. Even if it costs $5000-$7500 right off the bat to equip a developer, that's chump change compared to the opportunity cost of hiring a new one to replace him if he leaves. And it's a small percentage of their total compensation package. (And we have that wonderfully alluring Open Source thing going for us, so we won't lose folks just because they don't get to see their code set free.)

Reckon we could hire Resig? I hear he likes Perl.

which is the name of your company :) ?

Virtualmin. We'll be hiring for a couple of positions a little later this year (primarily related to our new cloud computing products, rather than what you see on our website today). Feel free to send over your resume.

"Ninja" and "Rockstar" are just a dorky way of saying "We're looking for energetic, self-motivating high-achievers to work in a dynamic team on its way to the top!" In other words, nothing.

If I read an ad that was looking for an expert in graph theory, or genetic algorithms, or whatever, with a strong knowledge of C++ for a small team where there were still opportunities to be treated as a co-founder ... then we're getting somewhere.

The problem with "rock star" and "ninja" isn't just that they sound dumb, it's that they're usually just a way of saying, "We don't really know what we're looking for, but if you're a workaholic, it might be you."

I agree that it is pointlessly chic, however have you ever thought about it from the point of the people hiring? It is difficult to find good people to hire, and this company isn't making any bones about what they want. Also remember to separate human resources from development. What you are getting, unless the company is tiny, is HR spiel.

I would use something like that as a flag of caution but I would want to see the job description/website/product information before making a final decision.

The Omni Group calls their support staff, "Support Ninjas", and I thought it was humorous the first time I saw it a couple of years ago.

http://www.omnigroup.com/company/people/

If it's a churn and burn shop that pays nothing then yes, stay away. If it's an over zealous HR person, than give them the benefit of the doubt. :)

We've solved that another way. Our employees get to choose their own title (except they can't use a legally significant name or VP without permission).

We have:

   * Head Greenskeeper
   * Mighty God of Thunder
   * Princess

... along with the usual "senior software engineer" and such. You might think that would remove the meaning from titles, but I can tell you... I'll take a Mighty God of Thunder or a Head Greenskeeper for my project any day over someone that put Senior Software Architect on their business card.

Why don't you choose for the best, regardless of the label they apply to themselves?

I do. I just told you their labels.

I'm sure that looks really good on their CVs.

One thing that you just generally have to watch out for with startup job postings is the people who have drunk too much of their own Kool Aid. Everyone believes they will change the world and make a major impact. Some certainly will change the world, others will "merely" exist in a self-sustaining niche that never changes the game, but earns everyone a nice salary.

Most startups are masters of spin, you pretty much have to be. Every developer is a "Rock Star", every VC is "Top Tier", every release is a "Revolutionary enhancement", and even though there could be 8 players in any one market, each one is somehow or another the "Leader", "Market Leader", or "Top Ranked" one.

Don't be turned off JUST by the job posting...

Way not take these titles literally?

Rock star: cocaine and alcohol habit; cancels important engagements at the the last minute; often uncommunicative / in stupor; always followed around by a gaggle of loose women;

Ninja: Hides from colleagues; carries deadly weapons; often surprises you with unpleasant experiences; uncommunicative; can't work with others; only ever seen at night

I'm sure, if questioned, most companies using these titles are not looking for these attributes! Seriously, why not ask for "Code Vampires" or "Project Pornographers" :-)

I think the "rock star" mantra used to work well when everyone else had dental job postings and a standard application form that had to be faxed in. Now, though, marketing and recruiting people are clued in on the "ninja" and "rock star" terminology, so abuse it to no end.

I too am turned off by these titles for this reason. When I'm recruiting I just go for what seems honest and appealing -- nothing overly flashy or trendy, but not boring either. I think the best positions combined with the best companies will always stand out in some way, but that way will probably continue to change.

Clearly we need to develop some new titles

1) Code Baristas

2) Python Jockeys

3) CrackerJack Developers (retro!)

Java Zeppelins.

Perl Bandits.

Ruby Wranglers.

LinkedIn profile: updated.

Ruby Samurais?

Ruby Commandos?

Lua Lunatics

Lisp Elitists

Scheme plotters

"... Clearly we need to develop some new titles ..."

T-Rex's

so this is reddit after all

"... T-Rex: so this is reddit after all ..."

I disagree.

Puns are hacker activities. The real power of a pun is being able to see things from different angles and perspectives. References to "reddit", cynicism and reasons not to learn seem to be closer to what you mean ~ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=248509

Thank you, I am relieved that someone pointed that out, I was kind of worried, I mean, this is a site for HACKERS after all . . .

i meant it in a joking way, because reddit was the first time I observed the phenomenon in node comments.

after all reddit was in its begginings a hackers place

Perl Pundits

Arc Angel ?

Code Visionary

Vision Architect

Architect Coder?

Had to complete the circle.

This is resolutely brilliant.

My employer follows the Starbucks antipattern of calling employees "partners". No longer content to be a UNIX Engineer, I'm henceforth a UNIX Barista.

Thank you for this. You've made my day.

My wife asked if organizations really advertise for "rock star" programmers, so I did a search on the local Craigslist and got four hits. The first link I followed contained the following definition of "rock star":

[quote]

FileMaker Certified Developer. (If you’re not yet certified, we’ll get you there!)

Ability to install and configure FileMaker Server Advanced; knowledge of ODBC access and custom web publishing.

Experience managing software development projects.

Experience with SQL, javascript, PHP, Quickbooks integration.

Computer science degree or certification.

[unquote]

Res ipsa loquitur.

The ad on the second link I followed said that the company's software "performs like a rock star". I'm not sure I would consider this a good thing.

To paraphrase from a popular movie:

"When everyone is a rock star, no one is."

Not everyone is a rock star.

In general, when people use cliche, uncreative analogies to describe something, it comes off as ridiculous.

Everything from GE calling their Six Sigma employees "black belts", to sales forces looking for "movers and shakers", to Fortune 500 companies overusing sports analogies, to people looking for "rockstar" developers.

It's trite and makes them look awful.

When just about everyone is a rock star, the lone groupie will be in high demand.

There is a lesson for the long tail here, right?

If the project is in fact "very exciting," maybe you should respond in kind. Humor them. Rent a rock star costume and wear it to the interview. Gently explain how you were moved by the job description but that there was this one part which seemed pretentious to you. Be honest. Tell them you cringed when you saw the words "rock star." Then, with all the drama you can muster, tear off your uniform facade and reveal the person you are underneath. Or at least the person you are in clothing suitable for a job interview.

More terms to avoid:

  * Ninja
  * Guru
  * ___ - Fu
  * Kick-Ass ___
  * ___ Chops
  * Mad ___ Skill[sz]

Sounds like a short list for potential .com's. :)

Actually I saw "Jedi Knight" once too. "plzadd kthxbai"

I have yet to meet a 'rock star' that was particularly impressive. They're 'washed up, surreal-life cast member' quality at best.

Is there even such a thing as a 'rock star' anymore? There are indie-rock bands with small but loyal followings, sure, but 'rock star'? My daughter won't have any idea what the term means. It smells of old out-of-touchness. Like COBOL! ROCK STAR COBOL PROGRAMMER WANTED!

I think "rock star" has, and is intended to have, a certain retro charm about it. A marker that those who use it are from a more civilized age (the 1980s) when songs were sung instead of spoken, when mistreating women was something you did in the privacy of your hotel room rather than the subject of your lyrics, and when writing songs about how awesome you personally are was considered a little gauche.

what you're describing sounds more like a "rap star"

Sorry, perhaps I was unclear, I was trying to contrast rock stars with rap stars.

Rap stars are the 2008 equivalent of rock stars, but nobody talks about rap-star programmers, because rappers aren't nearly as cool -- at least, not to the demographic which tends to dominate programming.

And that's why we still aspire to be rock stars even though rock barely appears on the sales charts in this blighted age.

I have a good friend who is a (budding) rock star [her band has 2 CDs out, and she just joined a Johnny Cash cover band as their June Carter Cash sing-alike). She is impressive. (Also, she is an undefeated [3-0 (albeit retired due to training injury)] professional boxer, playwright, director, and actor, Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy, and probably started at least one new project since I saw her last).

A less-known employer looking for talent on a job board has very few ways to distinguish itself from the pack. Looking for a "rock star" may be one of the ways it tries to do so. Tacky? Most certainly. Effective? Probably not. I don't know if it should be discounted because of it though. The only way to truly determine if it would be a good fit is to talk to the company.

Actually, a really good way to grab attention is by not doing what everyone else is doing. So, NOT looking for a "rock star" would be a good start.

this is 100% true. when we hired a developer at edufire.com, the ad ripped the phrase "web 2.0" and said if you were interested in building a real business that would change the world, you should get in touch. we got about 15 resumes, half were high quality, and we ended up being lucky enough to have an amazing developer agree to come on board.

it's pretty simple: if you want to find the top 1% of developers out there, don't hire like 99% of companies.

I've found that the vast majority of functioning code is written by a small minority of people at the company. The current exception for me is Tipjoy. That's because I'm the only developer, and own 100% of both the angelic and filthy code.

While the term "rock star" is a bit silly, a goal of mine is to grab someone from that 1-5% pool at a company that actually writes good code.

I don't think someone who simply rocks to the beat of chic and trendy catch phrases means they can produce the best code.

I wouldn't get so hung up on wording of a job post. Talking to someone for 20 seconds will give you inordinately more information.

On the same subject - does anyone find "a fun place to work" to be strangely unappealing ? I just can't help imagining myself rolling on the floor with laughter after seeing their existing code :) In the end it should be an interesting place to work rather than anything else.

I don't see the big deal. Especially if it's just a job post title. Think of it as just another way to say 'Senior' without implying any specific years of experience or worse, age.

I see some postings for code ninjas but where is all the love for code pirates?

Pirates need love too!

Well, I wanted that, too ("Python Pirates, Arr!") But it has a little bit of a bad connotation. Sounds like people who steal code all the time.

"Pirates ship it."

I have to listen to the "ninja" term all the time in my office. It drives me up the wall.

Is that because you don't want your ninja identity exposed?

Why would he be climbing walls if he didn't want to be exposed?

Try walking on the floor instead, and they might not catch on to your secret identity.

I think with engineers things are pretty binary. There is just 0 and 1. Some engineers can just follow (0) and other that lead (1). The (1) are the ones that just get things done. The (0) are the one that need some coaxing to get finish line. The whole idea or a rockstar, ninja is BS. It is like a project 0 you failed and are not complete 1 you've met the deadline. If you want a rockstar goto hollywood. If you want ninjas goto japan. If you want an engineer goto colos, star wars movies, your local tech meet ups.

I wrote a blog post on the very topic of so-called "rock star" job postings: http://coderific.com/blog/post/564

If you want a "rock star" developer, you can't ask someone to self-select. You have to know them, and then ask them directly.

I would never call myself a "rock star" (because it's a dumb expression), but I've personally never looked at a job ad and responded. I've always gotten jobs through friends that specifically said they would hire me. When you are going to spend 40 hours a week with someone, it's good for you to be friends.

'Wanted: Rock Star programmer for Bubblegum Pop company'

"Rock Star" in a job ad should only be used for Rock band auditions.

I steer clear of rock star job listings too. I suspect it means they have a weak team, weak technology, or both, or some kind of tangled mess, and they hope someone can come and fix it all for them while the other team members hold their responsibility at arm's length.

Man these are some awesome comments. "Self proclaimed" Rockstars != craftsman. Those who earned the title. Guido vonRossum et. al. are having their five minutes, let them have it, they took the risks. You can't blame the recruiter though, if they are looking to bring cocky, blowhards to the interview table and wow the upper "hangers-on" with their talk game. I think recruiting, much like a good programming environment needs to take bad decisions out of the equation or minimize the collateral damage thereof. Oh well, such is the state of recruiting and such is the ever changing complexion of software development. Time to go back to the guild and apprenticeship system. Any nobles out there? :p

Is anybody looking for a surfer dude developer ?

sure. drop me a line, email is in my profile.

Don't listen to him, OP. He failed to refer to you as "brah".

The term "rockstar engineer" always struck me as a comedic oxymoron. Guess I'm not the only one. Terms like "kick ass" and "rockstar" do imply youth, however, which is not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.

do imply youth, however, which is not a bad thing as far as I'm concerned

I am pretty sure discriminating on age is at best unethical and generally illegal in most major economies.

I do not condone age discrimination. I merely meant to say that those terms imply a younger company, which implies a smaller and a better work environment, in my opinion.

Alternatively, are there any "fun" job titles that are actually decent? Our founders are trying to think of something to call themselves that's not as boring as CEO/CTO/etc.

I'm Vice-President in Charge of Crayons.

When I see ads that advertise for RockStar Developers(!!!!!) I think about companies that describe themselves as "cool".

If you have to say you're cool....you're probably not.

i completely agree that you should probably avoid these places... at that point the company is trying too hard to be cool and therefore they are inherently uncool (to me at least) - not to mention, this probably reflects on the project / product they're building and who wants part of something that isn't awesome??

the other thing about 'rock star' and 'code ninja' that particularly turns me off is that it reminds me of that guy from payperpost who is annoying... i would really hate working for that guy, and in the few times i've seen him he never fails to say something like that...

one last thing i'll add is that i saw a job posting a grockit the other day and thought it was pretty interesting...while i wasn't enamored with their 'agile development practices' the way they probably want developers to be, i really liked their openness about what they offer in terms of comfort, health, and fun. very straightforward and very honest, which is really what i'd be looking for.

the problem is that for every good programmer there are a hundred that are just horrible, so I find that the whole "Rock Star/Guru" thing is just there to weed out the guy who has to lookup in his book how to do a hello world application

I HATE IT. It turns me off too. I wonder if it attracts certain people though?

Stunt Programmer

Agree, stay away.

I do not want to be a rockstar - or a ninja . . . I stay away from those types of ads, although I probably should take a closer look as other posters have suggested.

If we are going to get into that naming territory, I think Wizard or Sourcerer (misspelling intended) are more appropriate . . . and Bounty Hunter, Gunfighter, Sniper, Commando, Surgeon, Evil Genius, Field Marshall, and Gladiator are still not quite as silly as rockstar

Reply on news.ycombinator.com