←back to thread

631 points kiyanwang | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
blackbrokkoli ◴[] No.43629992[source]

Note that this says "best programmers" not "people best at having business impact by making software".

I wonder about this often: If you want to have impact/solve problems/make money, not just optimizing killing your JIRA tickets, should you invest a given hour into understanding the lowest code layer of framework X, or talk to people in the business domain? Read documentation or a book on accessibility in embedded systems? Pick up yet another tech stack or simply get faster at the one you have that is "good enough"?

Not easy to answer, but worth keeping in mind that there is more to programming than just programming.

replies(8): >>43630007 #>>43630051 #>>43630093 #>>43630108 #>>43630175 #>>43630276 #>>43630281 #>>43631346 #
jbreckmckye ◴[] No.43630276[source]

Generally we aren't paid for our business expertise. In fact, most businesses actively resist giving developers deep domain responsibility.

This is manifest in management methodologies: developers are largely interchangeable cells in a spreadsheet. I'm not saying this is a good thing.

The reasons for this are complex, but generally, business people want us to solve the technical problems they can't handle themselves, they don't want us to "relieve" them of product management, customer relationships, and industry knowledge. Why would they? It would devalue them.

replies(4): >>43630326 #>>43630443 #>>43630583 #>>43645055 #
yobbo ◴[] No.43630443[source]

Yep. A developer with "business impact" might be seen as a liability.

One aspect might be that a developer who engages in "business" effectively stops being "subordinate". Management decisions need to be justified on a different level to maintain legitimacy.

replies(1): >>43633078 #
ryandrake ◴[] No.43633078[source]

This thread is kind of wild and something I've never heard anywhere in tech. Every place I've worked would consider a developer at least 5X more valuable if they actually had business or product sense, and could operate without the need for constant symbiosis with a "product guy". At one BigTech company we've all heard of, our division didn't even have product people. The engineering lead was expected to handle all of the product duties, and they wouldn't hire you if they didn't think you could at least grow into that role.

It's one of the reasons I went back for a business degree and then re-entered tech. No, of course nobody in Silicon Valley cares about the "MBA" title (HN sees it as a negative), but everywhere I've interviewed/worked they've appreciated that we could talk about the economic and business impact of the software, and not just the algorithms and data structures.

replies(1): >>43642759 #
1. jbreckmckye ◴[] No.43642759[source]

That sounds great, and I would advise you to value it. Most tech companies are not this forward thinking (often to their own detriment)