Comment Re:Internal Inconsistency in his Argument (Score 1) 572
I might agree, but it all depends on your definition of ueber(*)-programmer
I've met some great programmers over the past 20 years, but only two ueber (über) programmers... who both shared these traits:
- They knew how to design, create, *share*, *teach* & *communicate* (without the latter, you're a liability to any company, not an asset).
- They never wrote a single line of code before thinking through the entire 'problem' at hand (30% analysis, 40% coding, 30% testing)
- They never decided on a single tool/language, but picked the best one for the job (languages were 'instruments', and like great musicians, they could 'play' many)
- They were flexible, efficient, concise, complete, and *never* 'hacked a quick fix' for a problem they did not understand
- They were *never* afraid to ask for help or elicit opinions of others, always considered and weighed external input, eager to learn & try new things, never afraid to admit their mistakes
- They *documented* everything, including thought processes, reasons for their design choices, mistakes made, and *commented* all their code extensively (if only to avoid getting stuck in a single project)
If that's your definition of an ueber programmers too, then YES, I wholeheartedly agree they can replace 10 others, or lift a merely mediocre bunch to great heights.
I even believe that the value-add (very good point by a previous poster) can exceed that of a 'basic' programmers hundredfold, because the product is reusable and can be maintained by others.
Ueber programmers create assets, not mere solutions.
NS (my first slashdot post, the aforementioned was written in praise of Eric G. & Jos V.)
(*) no mistake, the u needs an umlaut or needs to be followed by the letter e, pet peeve #2, it's *not* pronounced 'oober' as in goober...
I've met some great programmers over the past 20 years, but only two ueber (über) programmers... who both shared these traits:
- They knew how to design, create, *share*, *teach* & *communicate* (without the latter, you're a liability to any company, not an asset).
- They never wrote a single line of code before thinking through the entire 'problem' at hand (30% analysis, 40% coding, 30% testing)
- They never decided on a single tool/language, but picked the best one for the job (languages were 'instruments', and like great musicians, they could 'play' many)
- They were flexible, efficient, concise, complete, and *never* 'hacked a quick fix' for a problem they did not understand
- They were *never* afraid to ask for help or elicit opinions of others, always considered and weighed external input, eager to learn & try new things, never afraid to admit their mistakes
- They *documented* everything, including thought processes, reasons for their design choices, mistakes made, and *commented* all their code extensively (if only to avoid getting stuck in a single project)
If that's your definition of an ueber programmers too, then YES, I wholeheartedly agree they can replace 10 others, or lift a merely mediocre bunch to great heights.
I even believe that the value-add (very good point by a previous poster) can exceed that of a 'basic' programmers hundredfold, because the product is reusable and can be maintained by others.
Ueber programmers create assets, not mere solutions.
NS (my first slashdot post, the aforementioned was written in praise of Eric G. & Jos V.)
(*) no mistake, the u needs an umlaut or needs to be followed by the letter e, pet peeve #2, it's *not* pronounced 'oober' as in goober...
