Athletes and musicians pursue virtuosity in fundamental skills
notes.andymatuschak.org
notes.andymatuschak.org
Knowledge work like programming is just much less competitive. In a graduating class of 5000 computer science majors at a good university, I’d be surprised if the majority fail to “make it” to a 100k job and be able to support themselves. Once you secure a spot in the workforce it’s pretty easy to hang onto it as an average contributor without much objective measure or comparison against your peers.
Compare to sport, at the same university maybe there are 50 spots on a sports team, and 10 good teams at the school. What percent of kids who start out playing a sport at 10 years old get to have one of those spots, and what percent of those who make the college team go on to make 100k, support their family etc playing the sport?
That competition forces rigor - if I had to compete like that to get a software job, maybe I’d be “practicing scales” on the weekend too, not just when gearing up for interviews.
The only real lesson to be learned is "write for your audience" in my humble opinion.
To fully disprove my point, at what point do we never execute something with code so the distinction is even worth mentioning?
The job of software architects is the role Heidegger ascribes to man when he calls us "shepherds of Being". To understand the world as it is, and find the right abstractions to describe it. To constantly evolve those abstractions toward better ones, clearer ones, to seek out ways to represent things that make solutions seem obvious and inevitable.
A mathematics professor once said to me that as time went by, the definitions in mathematics became more complex while the theorems became simpler. "Why is that?", I asked, and he replied, "It's progress!" This is the sort of progress that the software architect seeks as well: to set up the problem so excellently that the solutions are smooth and the process is enlightening.
Great writing, and great code, are first and foremost about great ideas. About brilliant ideas that change how you view the world for the better.
* execution performance time
* build time
* regression frequency
* defect quantity
* code size
* dependency quantity
* test automation coverage
* test automation execution duration
The problem isn’t that we don’t know. The problem is that developers don’t measure things and simultaneously bitch about strong opinions.
I'm not sure the metrics you propose capture what makes good software good.
Perhaps these metrics matter in some small fields but overall most places that need software could care less about most of these, as long as the business objectives are reached. And the business "winning" relies on more than just the code running its software.
Bad measurements are only bad when they disqualify better measurements and better measurements only occur when some measure more directly proves/disproves the desired result.
This is why non-developers believe developers are generally hyper-autistic. For most developers everything must be about clear, easy, simple, safe. These are all super subjective self-serving opinions that don't do anything for the product or the labor that builds that product. Product owners will scream about this, developers will pretend to hear it, will immediately discard it, and then repeat the same insanity where they find comfort.
Step back, take a deep breath, understand that it's not about you or what you want, and finally discard the self-serving circular insanity and only focus on measuring your time to complete a task, time for the application to do things, and frequency of user engagement.
Example: I have a talk with the PO where we agreed on certain features and certain things that do NOT have to work. Often times when I make decisions during development that rest on the asumption that these certain things dont have to work I later on get told to incorporate them anyways. So I have lost a lot of trust in POs or anyone that is not a developer that tells me how a piece of software is supposed to function.
Example 2: I am currently dealing in my department with a case where a Product Manager talked to a Product Owner and they contractually aggreed with a customer to deliver one of our internal development tools, that are absolutely not ready for production or were ever meant for any customer.
Yes I will be "hyper-autistic" about my code because sometimes I do not have a choice.
Suppose I say that good code should have the lowest number of curly braces, or the lowest number of subroutines, or the flattest or deepest object hierarchy. A measure being objective doesn't make it good. So why is test coverage good?
In fact, every single one of the metrics proposed in the parent post is something I have seen gamed to the point of maladaptivness.
* execution performance time - So frequently overly focused on that you can find google hits for "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." I have seen developers spend hours or days saving (sometimes imagined!) run time, where all the time they saved over the life of the product wouldn't add up to the time spent. Extreme pursuit of performance leads to code that is hard to work on - who cares about those milliseconds when critical new features take months to write, or are even impossible?
* build time - It is very easy to diminish build time by destroying critical architecture. I have done it myself. :)
* regression frequency - Insisting on only making very safe changes is how you wind up spending six weeks lobbying change control boards for one line of code.
*defect quantity - In environments that actually track this, people merge issues into a single "fix what's wrong" ticket, degrading the utility of the ticket system. Defect granularity is not actually obvious!
* code size - Obfuscated X contest entries are often very compact, and people who obsess on saving lines and characters can wind up leaning towards that style.
* dependency quantity - Leads to attempts to homebrew encryption.
* test automation coverage - Automated testing ossifies design and architecture, which can paralyze, e.g., an experimental prototype. Full coverage is also costly - time and energy spent maintaining pointless tests can come at the expense of mitigating more realistic risks. I realize I depart from prevailing wisdom in this, but there are times and places when automated testing is simply inappropriate.
* test automation execution duration - Sometimes the right way to write a test is slow.
I'm not disagreeing that these are generally good things to strive for. They are! I'm saying that if you think these things define goodness, each one can lead you to a cursed place. (I hasten to add that there are times when a metric really does define goodness - sometimes you need speed or reliability or whatever, at any cost. Recognizing that circumstance and its limits - "any cost" does not generally mean any cost - is subjective.) Goodness is subjective, and while objective measures can help you assess it, such measures cannot define it - when and how you use which measures, and when you think they've gone off the rails, is itself a judgement call.
I once inherited a system that was both essential for business operations and a thorn in everyone's side. The guy I inherited it from (and the guy he inherited it from) had taken over a year to learn how to use it. I set about reorganizing, rewriting, documenting, abstracting - all those soft changes in pursuit of clarity and obviousness. They aren't objective, but they do pay off: when I handed the system off to the next guy (and three more after him!), he was off and building on it in a day. That was how I knew I had succeeded! When doing that sort of thing, you do always wonder if what you're writing is clearer for everybody or just you. But surely even the most hardheaded bean counter can see the value of training developers in a day rather than a year. That's good. :)
Goodness is contextual and subjective. I can agree that your goals are generally right, and I can point to circumstances where they're overemphasized or even outright wrong. Sometimes, when the sky is falling, a nasty little bash script that meets none of the usual criteria for "quality" is the best possible thing.
There are people who use subjectivity as a haven for vanity, and build mountains of pointless code in pursuit of some idea of goodness that serves no practical purpose or is even harmful. It is important that we retain our on ability to criticize on subjective grounds, precisely to counter that sort of activity - because you will find it in the land of the objective advocates as well, building mountains of metrics that don't serve any practical purpose either. To recognize a bad abstraction and a bad metric is the same skill, and requires the same confidence in your own good judgement.
Objectivity is no refuge from the necessity of good taste.
That completely misses the point. It’s not about what’s good. It’s not even about what’s better. It’s only about how much better, the distance between theirs and ours. Better is objective only when like aspects of competing items are compared within accepted bounds of precision using evidence.
The interesting thing about measuring stuff isn’t that people are otherwise entirely wrong in their assumptions more than 80% of the time, but that they are typically wrong by one or more orders of magnitude.
>That completely misses the point. It’s not about what’s good
The loss of context here makes me wonder if I am talking to an AI. The comment you originally replied to was,
We know what a good batting looks like but we still can’t say what good code is in any reasonably objective way.
Are we tracking? The original comment claimed that we do not know how to objectively measure goodness in code. You are (apparently) claiming to know how to do it. I am claiming it is impossible even in principle.
In this context, I find your response ("It’s not about what’s good", and the claim that "better" is easier fo measure) bizarre and nonsensical. Like an AI, you seem to have lost track of what we are talking about. We are talking about whether we can objectively measure code being good. It is exactly "about what's good".
Of course it is possible to measure things about code, but equating those measures to goodness relies on artificially constrained circumstances -- like a code golf contest or a PO declaring test coverage a metric to maximize. Athletes find themselves in such constrained circumstances all the time because it is a pursuit dominated by competition and games! It is most obvious in sports like sprinting or powerlifting, which are analogous to something like code golf, but even sports like basketball in which "goodness" is harder to define are heavily artificially constrained such that goodness in a player is about maximizing an objective measure - team score. This might be analogous to a programmer who sees his mission in terms of ticket closed per week. By contrast, programmers in general are usually working in a context in which the quality of what they produce is measured by a lot of complex impacts - on users, on business, on other programmers.
Some of what code needs to accomplish - conceptualizing a problem well, communicating clearly - is inherently subjective, having to do with how it is received by another mind. Programmers (myself included) are generally focusing on these sorts of characteristics when talking about code in isolation, partly because we feel the impacts to ourselves most keenly. But I would contend that there is something deeper and less obvious here - that maximizing this subjective goodness profoundly improves the situation in more objective areas. Well architected code, well communicated code, clear code is resistant to defects in a way that mere test coverage can't accomplish. This is not obvious, but it is deep wisdom arising from experience, and is part of what drives programmers to emphasize the ineffable in their understanding of goodness.
In fact, I was originally going to draw a parallel between being a good basketball player, maximizing team score, and a programmer maximizing business revenue. But I stopped myself, because this is an element of the deep wisdom of good code: focusing on ineffable, subjective excellence is profoundly positive for revenue. It's not something you can measure directly so much as it defines the circumstances the business finds itself in. This observation isn't unique to me - here's a pg essay making a similar point: https://paulgraham.com/avg.html Programmers talking about code being good in this sense may only be building sandcastles in the air - but they also may not be. You must possess the wisdom yourself to tell the difference. But there is certainly more to it than than selfish vanity.
But even leaving that aside, because code must meet a broad array of conflicting demands, optimizing among those depends both on the circumstance and the values held by the people in it. Hence, goodness in code will always have a subjective element, and (in the athletic sphere) is most like saying you are "healthy and fit" or "your best self". You can certainly bring measurements to bear, and we are certainly talking about something real, but there is an inescapable subjective dependence on the value judgement of the judge.
This actually touches on a broader philosophical debate: Are value judgements mere meaningless personal preferences, or are they (often imperfect) attempts to articulate something real? In code, and in life, I believe the subjective is pursuing the real, and moreover that anyone who thinks it's worth arguing about intuitively agrees with this assessment. By contrast, the view that only the objective is real, popular as it has been for the last couple of centuries, and attractive as its promises are, has been increasingly producing absurd results.
As you rightly noted a couple of comments back, what this view does is it smuggles in subjective assumptions. That is, someone operating under this view is going to objectively measure something (like kloc or number of tickets closed or execution time on a test data set) but the selection of what to measure, and the selection of how to value each individual measure of an objective quantity in order to determine overall "goodness", is subjective. The step where they assign meaning to a measurement is a subjective step.
It's interesting to watch the development of "objective" measures in basketball and the dialogue around how to determine if a player is the best, most valuable, etc. over time. Decades ago, the only stats we had were "counting stats" -- points, rebounds, and assists. Steals and blocks came a bit later. There is a correlation between putting up big counting stats and winning games, but it's not as strong as you might naively suppose. Once more sophisticated metrics were developed, something that "subjective" observers had always noticed ("losing player with good stats" is something that was often said about specific players) started to be quantified: some players put up big stats because they're doing inefficient things that result in individual stats at the expense of the team, like taking a high volume of shots even if they're lower percentage shots than a teammate could get on that play, or not contesting an opponent's shot but trying to chase the rebound instead (leading to more opponent scoring but also more personal rebounds over the course of a large number of shots.) In the modern era, advanced stats like PER, VoRP, WS, and BPM are basically more sophisticated models built on top of counting stats that try to scale them and weight them according to regression models. These stats are better, but they still don't capture everything, they only capture things that can be inferred from counting stats. They don't capture things like -- Steph Curry has such strong "shooting gravity" that his teammates often have extra space to shoot because multiple defenders are trying to make it hard for him to get a good look, or Rudy Gobert being on the court changes an opposing team's play selection because he's such a good shot blocker that plays that would lead to a bucket against a different player are leading to him getting a block so teams avoid those plays. Someone insistent on "objective measures" won't even consider these as things to potentially care about unless they have a way to measure them (which, now that we have sophisticated player-movement-tracking, we can actually measure things like how close the nearest defender is on shots by a Curry teammate when he's on court vs off court, or what percentage of opponents' shots are taken in a specific part of the court when Gobert is defending them vs when he isn't. So those measurements are coming online over time.) And, of course, understanding that it means something that Curry's teammates have extra space to shoot, or that Gobert's opponents might not be running their strongest offensive plays because of his shot blocking, puts us in the realm of meaning rather than mere measurement. Knowing to make the value judgment of "it matters how this player is impacting the game in ways we don't have a good numerical measurement of, but that a sophisticated observer who values those things can watch for and give subjective consideration of" puts us in the world of meaning rather than mere measurement.
That seems to be the same issue underlying this discussion. Knowing that conceptualizing a problem well matters -- and that it will profoundly impact the end result in objective areas even though it's not directly measured -- is wisdom.
Just start with the premise that bias isn’t helpful and even less helpful when implicit. Let that determine what to measure and will not be harmed. If such decisions twist you into knots then you are the person qualified to make such decisions.
Determining what counts as "bias" is itself a subjective activity. People who grow up in different cultures have different baselines for what factors matter the most and what factors they consider to be overvalued, undervalued, inappropriately accounted for, and so on. Not just different countries, but different subcultures within the same country (like, my cousins from the farm see a lot of things in society as biased toward big cities, which I never considered because I've lived in big cities for essentially my entire life.)
"start with the premise that bias isn't helpful" is, by the way, also not a measurable goal, which IMO supports what I'm saying. Knowing how to conceptualize a problem well (of which "eliminate bias" is a small subset) isn't something you can objectively measure, but it's something that will impact your objective measures down the line.
The comment about developers being autistic is particularly funny because I personally am autistic, and my wife (who you are responding to) is very much not. It was a major source of tension for us for many years.
Likewise, the emphasis on people "outside the organization" and the suggestion that she is somehow deficient on that front is laughable -- she's extremely highly regarded by customers/clients, and has been for decades, specifically for her ability to understand and solve their problems by getting them a great product whether or not they have any idea what her actual coding ability is.
And then the comment about "really wanting this to only be about code quality" is strange, since the subthread going back to kasey_junk's comment is about how "we still can’t say what good code is". Your initial response is entirely about measurable attributes of code (like code size and build time); Dove introduces "softer qualities" including "solving a valuable problem" (which is more about "quality product" than any of your metrics), and then you go back to a different set of metrics. She responded with an extended comment that specifically noted the importance of "complex impacts - on users, on business, on other programmers". Her comments have consistently been more about how good code impacts the functional product, while yours have been about measuring things about the code, but then your complaint is that she's too focused on the code and missing the point. Then you make comments about her own state of mind: what she is "wanting" to do and what you "suspect" she will do and her "complete inability" to accept certain things.
This very much feels like you just have a point you want to spike about measuring things (FWIW she does make it a point to measure things and to train her subordinates on making sure they're measuring things), and her comments (and my other one) are more excuses for you to repeat your point than actual ideas you're trying to interact with. Like you're not actually interested in engaging with the core idea that "Some of what code needs to accomplish - conceptualizing a problem well, communicating clearly - is inherently subjective, having to do with how it is received by another mind." It's just another opportunity for you to say that your set of objective measures are the only thing that matter, which, as I noted elsewhere, is itself a subjective position about which things to value.
* build time
* regression frequency
* defect quantity
* code size
* dependency quantity
* test automation coverage
* test automation execution duration
Why would these metrics be measured against human engineers when a large amount of these issues should be used to inform how to improve our systems and tooling to help devs?
For me its all about lowering regression and internal execution speed at all steps as much as possible, because I would rather do something else with my time than repeat myself on the same slow failures over and over. Getting my time back for personal use is a win for me and it allows the employer to ship a faster and more durable product.
Also, "dependency quality" just recursively moves the entire quality criteria to the next level.
> then you've basically just succumbed to Goodhart's Law
We're talking about adding more metrics that should be considered, and treating or not treating them as the ultimate goal is orthogonal to choosing the set of metrics! Product metrics don't save from goodharting
Jézus Krisztus and people are wondering why there is a job crisis underway. I had to attend my nephew's university graduation this summer and was shocked to see some 500 computer science majors, thinking where will all these people find a job? And you're talking of 5000 as a "sure thing".
Well it ain't no sure thing anymore and graduate inflation surely don't make things better.
There are ~2400 NFL players in the US, which means about 1 in 140k people.
If you figure that 10% of the people care enough about football to make an attempt, then someone who is in the 99th percentile of that group of people--someone I think many people would call undeniably good at the game, then they still have to be at least 99th percentile among those people to actually have a go of making it as a career.
There’s ~165 million males in the US, but many ex professional football players still alive and some kids who will eventually become football players. I doubt 10% of boys try out for high school or college football, but let’s say 10% make even some vague attempt.
Many people play professionally for a very short period, but arbitrarily suppose 1/7th of men are in the age range to play professionally. 165,000,000 / 2400 / 7 / 10 … So something like 1 out of 1,000 guys who make even a vague attempt end up in the NFL.
More realistically I doubt even 1% of boys ever approached football with serious intentions. Still horrible odds, except there’s a lot more athletic scholarships than openings in the NFL.
"Roughly speaking, there were 1,083,308 high school football players competing, and eventually 251 made it to pro. After simple calculation, we can get that the percentage of student-athletes going pro is approximately 0.023%."
https://u.osu.edu/groupbetaengr2367/junran-add-things-here-f...
Most players aren’t drafted. The average NFL career lasts 3.3 years. 2400 / 3.3 = 727 new players per year.
500,000 / 727 would be 1 in 687 or 0.15%.
UIUC awarded 500 ish CS degrees in 2023, so 10x less!
There's also the weird "success path" that goes from developer to manager. It's as though the end goal of learning to be a concert pianist was becoming a conductor, or perhaps a concert hall manager.
If your "success metric" is earnings, then "The force of competition at work" for knowledge work doesn't necessarily drive you to practice your Rust development "scales" every day, or to be the best Javascript dev in the team - it is probably a better use of your time to be "good enough" at your developer job, and hone your schmoozing and office politics skills to make the jump to better paid non development roles like "chief architect" of "VP in charge of {whatever}" or ultimately CTO or something.
Is it not. Wouldn't be surprised either way.
In soccer, a sport I am very familiar with on the playing side at a reasonably high level, this is not true. The median professional enjoys training and playing far less than the median spectator and median player of lesser quality would expect.
The common refrain, "If I had that opportunity, I would train like crazy," "I cannot understand how people can make that kind of money and live the dream of being a professional player and yet..." clashes with the reality of young people, like most top soccer players, who want to party, not train as much, and live a life of equal wealth but fewer obligations.
Athletes and musicians are performers. They are repeating a set sequence of movements over and over. They are reacting to the same situation with minor variations over and over.
If your knowledge work is in any way similar to that, then it should have already been automated. Probably by you, if not someone else before.
And there is no live requirement for doing programming while someone watches in a particular time frame. In fact, it's better to take your time. That will allow you to solve more difficult problems more robustly.
I would almost say that programming is just about the opposite of something performative like a sport or playing music.
You can get better at reading and solving problems by practicing that. But I don't see how toy exercises are usually important at all for professional programmers. Much less something like reading for the sake of practice.
And one of the joys of programing is that at each level, there's not one right answer. But even with there being different things you can optimize for, there's also a ton of poor choices that could be made as well.
Practice lets you focus on one aspect at one level, and improves your ability there. If you were to practice writing a function focused on correctness, another time on readability, and lastly writing the function based on performance optimization, you would almost certainly be able to write a better function later. You've expanded your tools, you've learned new techniques, and you've consciously evaluated your work from different perspectives.
Musicians performing existing pieces add touches of nuance but are penalized if deviating too much from the original.
A composer on the other hand should be adding significantly new components to the existing body of works and is measured on how much they are deviating from the existing body of works.
A sports analogy (although a bit weaker) would be Olympic/NBA/NFL/MLB/FIFA sports which have known rules and limits versus X-game/RedBull type sports which are pushing boundaries of non-existent rules.
Tech activities more similar to athletes/musicians that benefit from repetition would probably be like timed competitive leetcode or competitive Excel tournaments[1].
[1] Financial Modeling Worldcup https://fmworldcup.com/excel-esports/
This is peak hacker news.
If you mean a musician working with a DAW, then yeah it is much closer, but such musicians works much more like a knowledge worker and doesn't need to focus on the fundamentals that much, just like programmers, at least not more than the equivalent of an undergrad that programmers gets.
The big groups of musicians are massive chaos.
Performance is about doing something exactly right the first time on the night. Concert musicians, sportspeople, firefighters, surgeons, airline pilots, and military personnel all operate to a greater extent under this kind of constraint. When you are called upon to perform, you need to get it right. So you train and practice and drill to make sure you have all the basics down, and you rehearse and prepare for the specific performance you expect to do next.
Knowledge work is specifically work that is not like that. It’s work that will involve evaluating information and making decisions and incorporating novel insights and it doesn’t have to be right first time - there’s room for iteration and experimentation and bouncing ideas around.
Now, there are parts of some of those performance oriented jobs that require improvisation and creativity and evaluation on the fly - and there are parts of more knowledge-work jobs that require well drilled fundamentals (think about incident response in software operations). So the reality is these jobs all fall on a spectrum between structured performance and freewheeling discovery.
But asking ‘why don’t we rehearse how to do knowledge work?’ is nonsensical, knowledge work is precisely that work that involves incorporating and applying knowledge to do - the only way learn how to do it is by doing it.
Musicians, like any other "professional" have a broad range of functions from arrangers, composers to song writers, performing musicians, session musicians, touring musicians and so on.
A jazz musician (who might be performing live on stage) will likely not play the same song the same way twice. Is a jazz musician then not a musician because they aren't "repeating a set of movements over and over?"
If anything writing a CRUD type application IS something that could be automated because the patterns and the goals are largely the same but to take this example and apply to what atheletes do is pretty misguided.
Most atheletes are dynamically reacting to their environment or situation, taking into account the newest data and formulating a plan "on the fly" to meet their goals (scoring a goal, landing punches, etc).
My own credentials including multiple engineering degrees, experience designing equipment for "musicians" and "atheletes" so I don't think I'm talking out my ass here.
But for software engineering? This seems a lot harder to me. What seems to make most sense to me currently is really high-level stuff like "build up a local dev environment from scratch", "implement a minimal change than is visible in the frontend, but results in a change to the data storage in backend" and "write an integration test". Those seem to touch on many areas of skill and should be "trainable" in some sense, making them a good target of deliberate practice.
Thoughts or experiences anyone? :)
I haven't done exercises like that recently, but I found it helpful at the time.
Perhaps we rely too much on our ego that we can come up with everything on the fly where we should instead look into how other crafts did it in the past?
I don't know tons of stuff about tons of stuff, but I do have a fairly good sense for how computers work at all levels of the stack, which helps.
But I feel for a lot of "knowledge work" what is proclaimed to be the fundamentals and what the actually fundamentals are diverge quite a bit.
E.g. if automata theory a fundamental of (generic) software development. IMHO it's not. Sure it's a fundamental of many things you use for software development (e.g. programming languages, compilers, various "foundation libraries" like regex etc.). It's also a neat tool to have from time to time. But definitely not a fundamental for most software development jobs.
Through it's also a bit a question about what you define as "fundamentals". E.g. there are "fundamentals somewhat needed to understand at least somewhat to _effectively_ improve yourself" at least if you want to improve above a certain (often medium skill level) point. E.g. how colors work (physically and mentally) for painting and/or graphics design. And "fundamentals the science is technically based on but it kinda doesn't matter much for using it". E.g. a lot of things related to Chomsky-Hierarchie and grammars is for most software developers most times irrelevant. Not always, sure. But most times you end up needing this stuff at work you should pause and wonder "is that a good idea?". Because lets be honest while it's often fun, most times you are reinventing a wheel or making things more complicated then it should be or less maintainable etc. Sometimes in a subtle way. (E.g. custom config file format instead of leveraging existing formats like json, toml, etc.).
a modern music producer will literally spend 700 hours on a single song.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/717356/the-creative...
Because the comparison we’re being offered is to a concert musician, and their work routine is likely very different to a music producer.
I'm not really trying to establish which is harder or easier. Just that the pipelines and layoffs differ immensely.
And
Imagine if programmers were like NFL players, constantly measured on their performance against their peers.
I don't think they meant to say that NFL players loafs around all year except for a cumulative 17 hours.
Versus, say, a touring rock band that gets a cut of the performance revenue. I don't think there's anyone paying them a multi-year contract salary.
It means all of their job is concentrated in a few hours per year, so they have to be damn good at it. In order to do that, they need training, which is most of their working time. For most other jobs, there is much less time to train, and it doesn't matter as much because what counts is the average performance, not just a few key moments.
For programming, the parallel would be competitive programming. A competitive programmer will spend days studying algorithms like no one else, because it will matter for the hour or two of the competition. For typical programmers the loss of productivity for not knowing the algorithms is less than the time spent studying them.
Learning, training, practicing, teaching, rehearsing, performing are just several different modalities of (the) work, with distinct proportions depending on the job and the role(s).
It's not because one's not in a 9-5 office job that it's not work either.
Your plumber, or locksmith, or carpenter, or physician is also often performing for you only a few minutes/hours. You may think you're watching/paying for this performance only, but you're really watching all the experience that goes into this performance, that is the result of their previous studies, training, and practice and other performances.
The "difference" with a "typical" office job is that you don't get to have them in the single same place all the time, and watch/see them work through all those modalities, sanctioned by some manager. It's much more open than that.
What is amazing is how normalised the "controlling" factory/office work culture has become.
The problem is considering that only your office boss work view is the one that qualifies as work.
The problem is also considering that a software engineer performance is in writing code/investigating bugs, whereas it is in the whole process/intellectual pursuit. In some cases, you will need to spend a whole week of going back to fundamentals or training or other, to be able to solve your issue in a few hours on Friday.
I guess we solved that problem then. We're comparing apples to oranges and wondering why oranges don't have edible skin.
>The problem is considering that only your office boss work view is the one that qualifies as work.
So you're suggesting that more programmers should practice in their free time?
>The problem is also considering that a software engineer performance is in writing code/investigating bugs, whereas it is in the whole process/intellectual pursuit.
You can argue we're always performing or never performing in that case. Or perhaps our "performance" is crunch for a deadline, or right after a product shislps.
Either way, it's fundamentally different from practice/performance scheduling of athletes or musicians. Performance should be a place where you put 110% into an act, often in a burst. Physically or mentally, we can't afford to operate at 110% every day. That's why there's often a rest day for musicians/athletes. Knowledge workers is much more spotty.
This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous and smells like something said by people who know fuck all about athletics and musicianship.
In all these professions, and many more, we're expected to maintain a certain level of performance (or capacity for performance) whether we're officially given the time for it at work and whether we're paid for it or not.
I also don't see how you can possibly in good faith compare "public performance" to whatever you think the equivalent "performance" is as a developer.
It sounds disrespectful and unnecessary, honestly.
I never met a company that didn't expect to have this in the schedule and budget for their employees.
Given the breadth of technologies and the pace of the industry, I don't get how a tech-dependent company could afford not to.
The only exceptions so far have been FAAMG, but all of them also have it as optional not mandatory and rarely encourage it tbh.
Also, contracting doesn't usually let you bill training as part of the work. That's just "research" for the problem.
Seriously, this is the source of “rest and vest” as a mentality and why some companies, I.e Microsoft, are seen as tech retirement homes. They hire the brilliant lazy.
Yes, there really are a lot of FAANG caliber engineers who don’t work much harder than you described. Yes really.
Your fundamentals will change per field, and even per-domain. A back and front end web dev will have very different fundamentals.
Also, muscle coordination is something completely different from "knowledge work", unless the knowledge worker needs to learn by heart the Hamlet.
It’s not interesting to compare an extraordinary athlete - fill in your favorite professional hall-of-famer or multiple Olympic gold medalist here - to your average knowledge worker. Of course the extraordinary person does things differently.
More interesting to compare an extraordinary knowledge worker instead: top-tier CEO, famed author, Noam Chomsky, Einstein, whatever.
Ironically, the fact that you think it is obvious that you would only compare the 0.1% of "knowledge workers" to musicians and athletes means that you find the conclusions obvious. Of course knowledge workers, at the same salary as athletes and musicians, are far worse in quality.
Not that it's an injustice. Athletes and musicians are paid to be passively watched and listened to; it's a demand thing. Who's going to pay to watch or listen to someone average? The average programmer (and the average garbageman, who also doesn't put a lot of time into the fundamentals) gets stuff done.
I just don't think salary is a good metric or comparison here. Concert musician as a paid professions as fallen for decades. Tech is a multi trillion dollar industry, and even outside of tech there's a need for every business to establish basic IT and security.
It's a mix of demand, supply of cash, supply or workers, general respect, and a few other factors. Everyone needs school teachers but how do we treat them (outside of the whole "essential worker" schtick the one time they really should have stayed home)? Child care, on the other hand, pretty much lacks the funds to compensate any better given all the regulations that need to be upheld.
If you care about money and don't mind making the world a more terrible place: humiliate a few dozen human classical pianists by making them record hundreds of hours of motion capture, invest in engineering a good robo-arm, and I would guess in 5 years you'd have something passable.
most other things can be operated adequately by robots.
But then, you're better off with either synthesisers or direct genAI synthesis.
However I do wonder what the point of offloading the distillation of human emotion to robots is. The whole point of music is that it contains what someone _feels_.
I find huge gaps in my ability to rigorously read (and push through) boring (but important) paperwork. Take notes and do the required work afterwards (or take an important decision because of what I have read).
I find it very difficult to organize myself (and others) to do chores especially ones that are very disruptive and not technical.
I'm starting to see the value of project managers and other non-technical or semi-technical people in the companies. Their work now seems much more difficult than I imagined previously. Their skills are much less "interesting" and maybe "easier" in isolation, but in the same time they need to perform at high levels constantly.
This is everywhere. Humans can get remarkably competent at lots of things with a small investment of time (100 hours or so) and some intermittent practice.
The problem is that reaching the next layer almost always takes a big jump in time commitment. Want to be better at that foreign language? Yeah, 1000+ hours of practice and memorization incoming. Want to play something on guitar other than Wonderwall? Yeah, 1000+ hours of scales and metronome work. Want to win more at Chess. Yep, 1000+ hours of tactics along with some basic opening memorization.
So that leaves the idea to "practice" as your job. And that works for a few years. Then you realize you're mostly pencil pushing after that and not truly pushing to the next layer
Benjamin Franklin was referenced in the article, and there are far more examples in his life than just the writing exercises where he employed deliberate practice to improve his ability in an area. But he didn't continue these once we was rocking these skills at a world class skill level - instead he switched to practicing new skills he wanted to add.
But if you haven't tried doing so deliberate practice - I'd highly recommend it.
If you make an adjustment that enhances your performance you may notice it.
Tactics and strategies are more situational and harder to track because they are not universally superior but rather situational. You can still see results if the athletic performance of the team is enhanced... you can see it in metrics like ball possession and such.
Their job is to practice, they don't need to use their free time for that.
I am a knowledge worker, but I don't often take notes in meetings, because the purpose of meetings to to get agreement, not to forge new knowledge. Sure there are minutes and actions. But a meeting notes is not a "kata" that I practice to be better at my job.
I work in a research org at a FAANG, which supposedly puts me in the "top tier". I do not have a doctorate, or a masters. The thing that makes me "good" is that I am able to communicate how to do x with y, and direct people to use z with building blocks omega and theta. the thing I practice every day is working out how to translate an infrastructure problem to a researcher who couldn't give a shit and just wants put what they have running locally on the GPU farm, but faster.
That is my kata, that is what I strive to be better at.
I write to explain, not remember. that's just a nice side effect. Is that writing perfect prose? fuck no, but its a fucksite better than most of my peers. It has to be because I'm a shit engineer otherwise.
> People seem to forget most of what they read
Yes, and musicians forget music. Sure they have a repertoire of core pieces that they can pull out, but they are often learning one off pieces, or semi-sight reading stuff (session musicians are fucking ace by the way. Some are able to read music like a news reader does an autocue.) That core repertoire is kept alive because they need to play it often. For me, my professional repertoire is threading, message passing, and large scale dataflow. But my sight reading is computer vision shit.
In the same way a phd student will master and expand a tiny part of human knowledge, a musician will tend to specialise in a few composers, styles or periods.
> confusing a sense of enjoyment with any sort of durable understanding
Again, thats not what a knowledge worker does. Learning for fun is not the same as core knowledge/skill required for someone to perform a job. Thats someone pissing about and learning new things for enjoyment, and they should fucking do it regardless of the snobbery from people who want "completeness"
One of the amusing things about this whole argument is that the writer must have been able to write, spell and read well from a young age. The ancient greeks would have been very suspicious of that kind of working, because they thought that writing was the death of memory, deliberation and debate. Socrates would have particularly pissed off with the assertions on memory.
I couldn't write meaningfully until I learnt to touch type. So for me, everything was memory. I work differently to most people, so I'm not arrogant enough to produce sources and say that I have the best way to be a knowledge worker. I don't but it works for me. The author would do well to remember that untested assertions are not science. (yes, even if you cite papers.)
How many of you use ZettelKasten note taking?
I suspect that top-tier athletes at least are not spending 40 hours a week on training and performing. Writers, too. Musicians I am not sure about.
There's a lot of neural and muscle learning and tuning involved to specialize in those skills. But in order to start, you need to learn and tune the right things. As they also say, it very hard to unlearn things.
It what amazes men when I watch baseball (I'm a nut for baseball). We watch these guys perform "routine" stuff on the field every day, but we also watch them bumble, slip, drop things, miss the balls, etc. And these are the REALLY GOOD players. There's 10,000 other players in the minor leagues. They try to make it look easy, but demonstrably, it's not.
But if you watch how they train, it's all about fundamentals. Arm angle, foot placement, where to look, when to look, and that's even before you talk about "baseball" knowledge -- knowledge of the game itself, field awareness, etc. This is just getting the ball in the mitt or the bat on the ball.
In our field?
Not so much. It's far less important.
My favorite anecdote was when a junior programmer at work came to me and we were talking about his project, a little GUI front end to a SQL database. He was done with the project, and I asked him how it went. He said it went fine, but he was confused about something. He wasn't sure what the difference was between RAM and disk.
So, here was a fellow, who accomplished something, using then modern tools while essentially ignorant of how a computer even works. This is a testament to the tools and platforms of the day. How with just some syntax knowledge, and a bit of a logical head on his shoulders, he can accomplish productive work.
For many, computer work is borderline blue collar work. It's assembly line stuff, know what to do, not necessarily how or why it's done. Drag and drop, cut and paste, commit it and ship it. And now, of course, we have the AIs to help.
This is not a bad thing.
I've managed to get through my entire career without a deep understanding of networking, firewalls, BGP, routing, all of that stuff. Can I configure a DNS server? Nope. Despite the Petabytes of information I've shipped hither and yon across such things, when it comes down to the core level? The lower layers of the stack? "Contact your Network Administrator" because that's not me.
I am ignorant of cache lines and such like that. I know they exist, I certainly understand what they do, but I've never given them any consideration in my work. None of that has ever been necessary.
It's certainly valuable to get exposure to all of the parts of puzzle, even if you don't have a full understanding of them. I know I resort to core fundamentals about how things work to understand problems all the time. But the truth is, for a lot of the work available, and that needs to be done, that level of detail is unnecessary.
I've worked with folks who are fascinated with the craft and field, always learning and growing. And I've worked with the 9-5 folks, who learn precisely what they need to accomplish the job, and just...stop. Do the work, but just the work. They have other interests elsewhere.
Doesn't mean they can't do the job though. These are not bad people.