Hacker News Reader

Comment by borski | Hacker News Reader

With all due respect, I think the author has to be careful not to be jaded. While burnout and echo chambers are a real problem in the valley, an engineer who genuinely enjoys short sprints and hackathons, or staying up all night occasionally to prototype something they're excited about is not necessarily a bad hire.

Some of my fondest memories are of building something alone, or with colleagues, all night because it was time-sensitive or something we were really passionate about. That does not inherently make me bad at thinking strategically, working "normal" hours, or building long-term successful projects.

They are different skill sets, but one person can be great at both. The author seems to imply that's not true, which is a common misconception, IMHO.

View on HN

Some people just like to work like that, and that's ok. What's wrong is when you require people to work like that or when people who work like that get ahead disproportionately.

There's a difference between being willing to stay up all night to finish something and being proud of that kind of thing. I got the impression the author understood the difference.

Right; my point is that some people genuinely enjoy it and are proud of when they have moments of inspiration and end up working late nights to complete something. Some people genuinely work best at night, and I get the impression that if an engineer doesn't fit into the author's specific idea of "work life balance" they are considered "young."

In my experience, that's not necessarily true; some engineers just genuinely enjoy working late at night, and are often proud of the results. Otherwise, they would presumably stop working late at night.

I read it more as referring to the way the engineer approaches the problem vs what time of day they work.

An engineer who starts hacking away a solution and keeps at it 90+ hours a week (or whatever amount) but then because of this burns out and looses interest in 2,3 or 6 months is not as valuable as an engineer who can consistently keep working at something until the product is delivered. The engineer that is burned out probably won't be able to last X years at the company, and since the author is trying to somewhat maximize the time the employee stays the "burn-out approach" engineer is not desired.

Kind of like that other article that popped up in HN a few weeks ago that basically said "discipline over motivation", which I read as "it's better to be able to work 2-3 hours a days every day for 5 years, than being able to work 15+ hours a day for 3 weeks".

Obviously your opinion might vary as to how useful this strategy is, but I think it has a different meaning than just "an engineer that works at night".

It seems the author is discouraging the practice of staying up all night but not throwing it out entirely. In my reading the article suggests that this shouldn't be the rule but leaves space for times when it may be required, or not so bad.

I wonder how the author would respond to having people, say once every few months or so, do an intense overnight hack session. I would guess he'd be fine with it, but suggest keeping a close eye out so that it doesn't become the rule.

How am engineer chooses to work shouldn't be up to the author. Some people genuinely do their best work late at night. Just as you shouldn't expect everyone to work into the wee hours, you should also not expect everyone to work not to. Work-life balance is a personal choice, and should be up to the individual engineer. Managers who force their idea of balance on others end up with a different kind of groupthink instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com