←back to thread

1455 points nromiun | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
noen ◴[] No.45075068[source]
This article reminds me of my early days at Microsoft. I spent 8 years in the Developer Division (DevDiv).

Microsoft had three personas for software engineers that were eventually retired for a much more complex persona framework called people in context (the irony in relation to this article isn’t lost on me).

But those original personas still stick with me and have been incredibly valuable in my career to understand and work effectively with other engineers.

Mort - the pragmatic engineer who cares most about the business outcome. If a “pile of if statements” gets the job done quickly and meets the requirements - Mort became a pejorative term at Microsoft unfortunately. VB developers were often Morts, Access developers were often Morts.

Elvis - the rockstar engineer who cares most about doing something new and exciting. Being the first to use the latest framework or technology. Getting visibility and accolades for innovation. The code might be a little unstable - but move fast and break things right? Elvis also cares a lot about the perceived brilliance of their code - 4 layers of abstraction? That must take a genius to understand and Elvis understands it because they wrote it, now everyone will know they are a genius. For many engineers at Microsoft (especially early in career) the assumption was (and still is largely) that Elvis gets promoted because Elvis gets visibility and is always innovating.

Einstein - the engineer who cares about the algorithm. Einstein wants to write the most performant, the most elegant, the most technically correct code possible. Einstein cares more if they are writing “pythonic” code than if the output actually solves the business problem. Einstein will refactor 200 lines of code to add a single new conditional to keep the codebase consistent. Einsteins love love love functional languages.

None of these personas represent a real engineer - every engineer is a mix, and a human with complex motivations and perspectives - but I can usually pin one of these 3 as the primary within a few days of PRs and a single design review.

replies(20): >>45075408 #>>45075546 #>>45075605 #>>45075650 #>>45075660 #>>45075767 #>>45075790 #>>45075860 #>>45075867 #>>45075993 #>>45076014 #>>45076041 #>>45076341 #>>45076370 #>>45076392 #>>45077077 #>>45077131 #>>45077552 #>>45079976 #>>45081167 #
Disposal8433 ◴[] No.45075660[source]
> three personas for software engineers

The kind of psycho-bullshit that we should stay away from, and wouldn't happen if we respected each other. Coming from Microsoft is not surprising though.

replies(4): >>45075798 #>>45076319 #>>45076603 #>>45077207 #
mdaniel ◴[] No.45075798[source]
For my frame of reference, do you think the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator are psycho-bullshit, too? Because I had characterized personas as a very similar "of course it's a generalization" and OP even said themselves "every engineer is a mix" but if you're coming from stance that bucketing people is disrespectful, then your perspective on MBTI would help me digest your stance
replies(5): >>45075808 #>>45075870 #>>45076111 #>>45076127 #>>45076638 #
wiseowise ◴[] No.45076111[source]
Both are made up bollocks for idiots to label people. Just write fucking code, solve business problems and go home.
replies(1): >>45077217 #
1. fragmede ◴[] No.45077217[source]
Everything is made up. How do you organize people into being able to solve problems?
replies(1): >>45078499 #
2. wiseowise ◴[] No.45078499[source]
> How do you organize people into being able to solve problems?

By not putting reductionist labels on them.

replies(1): >>45090067 #
3. fragmede ◴[] No.45090067[source]
I don't see how that helps if the number of people you need to solve a problem exceeds the ability of a single human to know all of the people involved.