←back to thread

Ask HN: Builders vs. Mercenaries – does this distinction make sense?

1 points grandimam | 1 comments | 20 Nov 25 06:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.225s | source

I have been noticing two types of engineers on teams I have worked with, and I'm trying to figure out if this is a real pattern or just confirmation bias.

- Builders are focused on users and the domain problem. Code is just a means to an end. They'll ship something imperfect if it unblocks a real user need. Ask them to spend time on optimizations that don't affect the user experience? Hard pass.

- Mercenaries are focused on the craft itself. They care about clean architecture, performance, elegant abstractions. They'll go deep on technical problems whether or not the business or users actually need it solved right now. The quality of the work matters independent of impact.

But I'm not confident I have this framed correctly. A few questions:

- Does this distinction resonate with your experience?

- Which type are you, and has that changed over your career?

- How do you balance these mindsets on a team?

1. bontaq ◴[20 Nov 25 07:17 UTC] No.45989857[source]▶
I'd say you identified a difference with modern names. This split has certainly grown wider in the "code is cheap" AI era and changed meaning.

I'm firmly in the camp of actually enjoying programming. To me it was interesting to hear that some people actually don't like it all, and it's much nicer to have something "just do it".

Over my career I've leant much more heavily into programming as the art.

I wouldn't even say "how do you balance" is too much of a problem, as we all can vary between needs, you know?