Only code at work? That doesn’t make you a worse programmer | Hacker News Reader

Only code at work? That doesn’t make you a worse programmer

codewithoutrules.com

29 pointsitamarst23 comments

Coding at work might not make you a worse programmer, but I found that coding outside work does allow me to be of more value at work.

I'm at home fiddling with yarn and webpack - for my own private projects - and I might take that and introduce it at work someday, just as I introduced Typescript, LESS, Knockout.js and made the "back-end of our frontend" better.

In hindsight, this probably was not done if I didn't fiddle with tech at home. Most, if not all, of the collegues in my small team are strictly code-at-work developers, and I sincerely believe that is a risk because you can get stuck in time. We also don't have a 'tech-friday' or some other opportunity to work or experiment with tech, so it really needs to come from free time.

I'm sure others might have a similar experience.

This has a taste of my employer doesn't care enough, so I do work for free to compensate, although course is not just good for them in this case, but also compensates for their lack of helping you learn more.

> We also don't have a 'tech-friday' or some other opportunity to work or experiment with tech, so it really needs to come from free time.

It really needs to come from your employer. If they're not invested in making sure their craftsmen have time to sharpen their tools, they're going to get some shitty crafts made.

It's really not about what should happen in a perfect world. I'll stay after work or put some extra hours in to create a proof of concept using a new to me technology. The company may benefit from my extra hours but so do I. Either my current employer is going to pay me more or my next employer is going to pay me more based on what I learned.

If a company is doing fine with the current technology, it doesn't benefit them to invest in the new and shiney as much as it benefits you as a developer. It also doesn't hurt their business not to invest in the latest technology as much as it hurts your career.

I think this ignores some ideas which make the topic more complicated. If code is a tool, then like any tool, the more you use it the more adept you are at using it. Almost anyone can hit a nail with a hammer, but a skilled carpenter can drive a nail in one, maybe two hits. A less experienced carpenter, maybe three or four. In software that translates to less refactoring, more thoughtful design on the first go, and fewer bugs. Experience is not an unimportant factor in software quality and "time behind the wheel"--while maybe not the most important factor--does make a difference.

> Enthusiasts often have a strong grasp of the tools and technologies they use. On the other hand, they are sometimes prone to holy wars and zealotry (they feel it’s important to choose the very best tool), and until they finally realize software is a means, not an end, they have a harder time working towards goals that aren’t about writing software.

This is based on the false assumption that enthusiasts fall into a specific archetype. The rest of the article makes the assumption that coding outside of work is a solitary activity that doesn't involve soft skills. Both are not always true. Though I don't find the technology appealing myself, one only needs to look to the cryptocurrency community to see a vibrant and collaborative group of people who are building software outside of their day jobs. Large chunks of Firefox have been built by volunteers. Hell, ECMAScript is built on the shoulders of the community. I don't think it's fair to discount the non-technical skills that one could develop outside an office environment while still working on software. You could just as easily not code outside of work and also not have soft skills that your enthusiast coworkers lack.

The author is right that coding outside work isn't necessary, but I think there's a subtlety to the argument that's missed. Enthusiasts who hone their skills correctly do come out well rounded and end up being rewarded for their effort. Pragmatists also can hone their skills--technical or otherwise--and come out more well rounded also. But experience does matter, at least somewhat, and being in an office building isn't a magic bullet for improving yourself.

I’ll put on my cranky old engineer hat and say that enthusiastic people make a complete mess of things. Over design with too much architecture and abstractions make my life miserable.

I don't spendy my weekends and weeknights coding or reading about coding anymore. But when I did, I grew as a developer faster than when I didn't.

But now that I have other priorities in life, I don't need to pretend that I wouldn't be a better dev if I spent more time honing my dev skills.

But right I'm focusing on other things in life besides development skill, and the trade off is because of that I'm not going to be as good of a dev, teammates will know more about certain tech than me. And that's ok.

Somewhat meta comment: there seems to recently be a huge uptick in the number of articles on this exact topic. What sparked this? Is it a reaction to something specific? Reacting to impostor syndrome, "if I don't code at home like everyone else, I must be useless!"?

It's a background worldview that left wingers want to popularize, so a bunch of them are doing it.

I think it's a reaction against the past decade of "you should only hire devs who breathe, sweat, and bleed code" that we've seen for the past decade.

Also lots of devs are getting older, find their priorities in life shifting, and writing blogs about it.

Yup. I have a two year old. Guess how much time I get every weekend to work on hobby code?

If you guessed a negative number, congratulations on your growing family, because you understand.

Congrats on the two year old. Mine turns two next month. Some nights, after he goes to bed and I'm done with chores, I'll open up my laptop, fire up VS Code, and wake up on the couch four hours later.

Try applying for a job that doesn't ask for people who are passionate about code frameworks or have github repositories "for fun".

I've been working as a professional software developer for 20 years. I spent 9 years at one company until 2008 (6 years too long) and I've had 4 jobs since then. I have never once been asked to show code and my salary has gone up by $60K+ during that time - and I'm not in Silcon Valley.

I've never shown and outside passion about coding. I moved from C++ to C# back in 2008 and have basically stuck with C# since then.

The job I currently have as the dev lead didn't involve any coding questions just architecture.

Your experience is valid, but keep in mind most people don't have that 9 years of experience in a single company to base their hirability on. Employers can give you the benefit of doubt, due to your resume, that you're a good hire. Not so for most younger developers. So what else is there for employers to look at other than proven rockstars and hobby coders?

Keep in mind I agree with you, but I certainly understand the mindset that the parent comment was criticizing.

Well. That's true too. I got my first side project in 1994 because a college saw a HyperCard stack I posted on AOL.

I used that experience to get an internship in '95 and that led to a job with the same company after I graduated the next year.

But after trying to catch up because my "9 years of experience at one company" was really 3 years of experience and the other 6 years was just stuck doing the same thing I did the first 3 years, I vowed never to put myself in that situation again. If I see myself not keeping up technically at a company, it's time to either leave or study and do a side project.

I may never publish the side project and it may just end up being a proof of concept.

I've found that stuff I do at work sometimes sucks the life out of me. Doing a 2-3 day project at home somehow brings the life in me and I no longer find the work so tiring and can again be productive.

If I don't do that, I never recover. I can take a passive or active vacation and get back to work still being unmotivated.

Yup. I love getting time to work on a pure passion project, even if it's something silly. I happen to enjoy coding; it makes me happy.

But not everyone is like that. Other people are recharged by spending time with their family, or riding a bike, or getting diamond tier in Overwatch or whatever.

Not sure if I agree that pragmatists don't code at home. Even if you aren't particularly enthusiastic there are still problems that are best solved with small programs.

Frankly I don't even agree that enthusiastic and pragmatic are mutually exclusive. In my own experience I've found it hard to get enthusiastic about programming without purpose. As far as I'm concerned this is what's called pragmatism.

Completely agree — I'll happily rewrite something 17 times on a hobby project. But at work I'm also the first person on the team to ask "do we need this?"

That doesn't make you a worse programmer on current job. That's important, because side projects help me discover and master other domains, not those from my job.

Nonsense. It does make you a worse programmer. "Working on a team" and "testing" skills are not hurt by doing more programming at home.

Surely, this is another trash blog post trying to prove something without doing any work or even defining a goalpost of "better programmer". e.g. "It’s also not true. That inadequacy you’re feeling is based on false assumptions, a misunderstanding of the skills it takes to be a good programmer." - 0 citations. The post is a contrarian thought experiment, I think.

My belief of the opposite conclusion (from the blog post) is based on a simple axiom. You have restrictions at work. Negotiated technical, and practical (different than those at another location) restrictions. Limiting development to one location necessarily makes you less flexible in thought and skill and practice. This is commutative (the person with 5 years development in school, entering the workforce).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com