> simultaneously deriding most of your current and former co-workers at other businesses as merely average
I specifically excepted game developers because they're an above-average bunch, but yes, I'm merely relating the facts as I see them. And honestly I think, based on the kind words I've received from many coworkers over the years, that many would actually agree with my appraisal, and would report that I was helpful in teaching them better ways to accomplish things.
>This raises an issue that is just as important as technical prowess: emotional intelligence. I'd personally green light ten or twenty 'inferior' ( by your standards ) developers over 1 technically superior ( again, by your standards ), but arrogant and morale-destroying, primadonna.
I'm assuming for sake of civil discussion that you're not implying that I am the arrogant, morale-destroying prima donna, because that would have been rude and confrontational.
>Sorry, but technical chops aren't everything. Soft skills matter just as much.
Technical chops can get you 10x-100x-infinitely more productivity. I've frequently accomplished things in minutes that other developers have been blocked on for weeks. Extremely poor soft skills can disqualify an otherwise good developer, sure. I'd block the hiring of someone who was excessively arrogant, abrasive, or otherwise a harm to morale.
But many really good developers are actually really polite and helpful in a team setting -- I've worked with multiple developers that fit that description. And good technical chops are much more rare than decent soft skills, so the former is what's grilled most in an interview. The soft skills show through as well, though, and can equally get you disqualified.
It does depend on the domain whether you really need a great developer. Presumably you work in a domain where you can get away with average developers. That's fine, you can get away with paying them less, go for it.
But that attitude is a big part of why most companies' servers seem to get hacked sooner or later. Note that you don't hear about huge security breaches at Amazon revealing tons of private customer data, despite the fact that they likely are the top target for any exploit that could be used against them.
And part of that is, in fact, that they have a higher bar for developers.
I specifically excepted game developers because they're an above-average bunch, but yes, I'm merely relating the facts as I see them. And honestly I think, based on the kind words I've received from many coworkers over the years, that many would actually agree with my appraisal, and would report that I was helpful in teaching them better ways to accomplish things.
>This raises an issue that is just as important as technical prowess: emotional intelligence. I'd personally green light ten or twenty 'inferior' ( by your standards ) developers over 1 technically superior ( again, by your standards ), but arrogant and morale-destroying, primadonna.
I'm assuming for sake of civil discussion that you're not implying that I am the arrogant, morale-destroying prima donna, because that would have been rude and confrontational.
>Sorry, but technical chops aren't everything. Soft skills matter just as much.
Technical chops can get you 10x-100x-infinitely more productivity. I've frequently accomplished things in minutes that other developers have been blocked on for weeks. Extremely poor soft skills can disqualify an otherwise good developer, sure. I'd block the hiring of someone who was excessively arrogant, abrasive, or otherwise a harm to morale.
But many really good developers are actually really polite and helpful in a team setting -- I've worked with multiple developers that fit that description. And good technical chops are much more rare than decent soft skills, so the former is what's grilled most in an interview. The soft skills show through as well, though, and can equally get you disqualified.
It does depend on the domain whether you really need a great developer. Presumably you work in a domain where you can get away with average developers. That's fine, you can get away with paying them less, go for it.
But that attitude is a big part of why most companies' servers seem to get hacked sooner or later. Note that you don't hear about huge security breaches at Amazon revealing tons of private customer data, despite the fact that they likely are the top target for any exploit that could be used against them.
And part of that is, in fact, that they have a higher bar for developers.