If developers really can do good things for society, then by helping other developers, am I not helping to achieve that goal? If software is useful, and I build something that makes developing software easier/faster/cheaper/better, why should I be criticized for wasting my time while the guy who uses my stuff to build something else easier/faster/cheaper/better gets lauded?

To me, this is like praising a farmer for feeding the world while criticizing the company who builds his tractors for indulging in self-pleasure. Yeah, people can't eat tractors, but those tractors enable a vast increase in the farmer's food output.

The economy is a vastly complex interlocking web of interactions. You can help people enormously while still being far removed from the pointy end. People on the pointy end deserve our respect, but people far removed from it who still assist in some indirect way don't deserve our scorn.

User interaction isn't my strong point. Low level arcana is. Am I really going to improve the world more by resting on my weak points that would help people directly, rather than concentrating on my strengths and helping people indirectly?

Computers are enabling massive changes and improvements in the collective lot of humanity. And yet most of the innovations driving that started out as toys, as computer people building things for other computer people, or as tools for massive corporations and the massively wealthy. Imagine if the people working on early cell phones had said, you know what, I don't want to build flashy toys for 1% Wall Street types, I want to build stuff for the underprivileged in poor countries. That approach does not result in said underprivileged people obtaining cell phones, whereas the former does.

In short: this stuff is complicated and making enablers feel guilty because they aren't out at the front is counterproductive.

To take your analogy, it's like seeing some people jumping out of windows with wings and telling them, hey, stop trying to invent stuff. No, the correct message is, do your research.

Developer tools can be extremely useful, you just have to make sure that what you're building is useful and hasn't already been done before. This is completely different from saying that all developer tools are useless, which is what was said in the post.

That isn't what was said nor what was implied. Someday we will stop pretending that what we do is "extremely useful". A developer tool is nice. It is neat. It is cool. It is a bulletpoint on your resume. It is a repo in the github. It buils your brand. It scratches your itch. It generates revenue. It has a long tail. etc etc... But "extremely useful" ? To the real world full of real people ? Not in a million years. Let me look at my own work, at this very instant. I'm coding up a scala sobol sequence generator by solving a recurrence on a primitive polynomial of the Z2 field. Why in the world would I need this ? Well if I have a low discrepancy sobol sequence I can generate quasirandom montecarlo variates in scala instead of importance sampling. Why in the world would I need that ? Well with a million of those variates I can tell you with a lot of accuracy whether a commercial loan will default & what the expected loss would be ? Why in the world would I need that ? Well since we have a portfolio of millions of commercial loans, like every bank on the planet does, we need to compute the value at risk so we know how much capital to set aside in case of defaults. Why in the world would I need that ? Well since....I can go on and on, but at some point, I will be forced to acknowledge the very point the post was making - that the world is full of real people. These tools & algorithms are neat, but they are a workproduct of privilege. Everytime we build a piece of software, we are simply resorting to the rifleman's creed the marine core uses ( you know, the one that goes - This scala sobol sequence is mine. There are many like it, but this one is mine! ) So f*ing what ? It is definitely a life of privilege. It is far far removed from the world of real people. Personally there is nothing else I would rather do. But to pretend that what I'm doing is on the same plane of someone say vaccinating a kid with malaria in the tropics, or providing shelter to a homeless person etc is highly disingenuous. That would be reality. otoh coding software is simply privileged cs guys playing games with bits and bytes so that after the talent acquisition exit, we get to play games with vc money on techcrunch :) Lets not kid ourselves.

And if you went one step further, you'd have realized: "to reduce the risk of a bank failure and potentially saving thousands of jobs."

But to pretend that what I'm doing is on the same plane of someone say vaccinating a kid with malaria in the tropics...

Lets think about the guy vaccinating a kid to prevent malaria.

But lets think a few steps back. Rather than thinking about the guy with the needle, think about the guy in the lab coat. He's currently sitting in a lab somewhere, fucking around with gene assays in order to create antibodies. Why does he do this? Because some other guy might use the antibodies to stimulate an immune response to malaria parasites in rats. And the other guy might find out the first guy was wasting his time.

The vast majority of people who are trying to do exactly what you ask (creating a malaria vaccine) are "building things 'we don't need', throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something will stick."

And if you back up a couple steps more, you realize all this was only possible because someone built biologist tools (e.g. gene sequencing machines, bioinformatics software) which are neat and cool and bullet points on a CV and also completely useless to "real people".

But to make a blanket claim that no tool is useful, "not in a million years", is completely wrong. The real world full of real people has benefitted tremendously from certain software projects. Those projects have in turn benefitted from others, which benefitted from others, etc. Not all software is involved in the chain, but a lot is.

Software does things like predict weather (saving thousands, perhaps millions, of lives and vastly improving other lives), help design buildings and machines, allow people to communicate over extremely long distances at very little cost, etc. etc.

All of that software was enabled by various developer tools that have been built over the years. Tools like FORTRAN compilers, UNIX systems, make, gcc, VMS, etc. etc. All of those have been extremely useful. Indirectly, they have been extremely useful to real people in the real world. So why do you say that "not in a million years" would anything we build be useful. Maybe what we build isn't, but it certainly can be, and a lot of it is.

Is what I'm doing extremely useful? Probably not. But if I wanted it to be, the answer isn't to stop programming and go vaccinate kids. The answer is to apply my software skills to areas which are useful in general. The results don't have to be directly useful to "real people" to be indirectly useful to them.

Building some Facebook clone is probably not all that useful. But to come along and act like all software is simply an act of privilege and is never useful to "real people" is just plain wrong.

The point of the article is that it's easier to build and profit from these wants, even if they're not truly beneficial to people outside of the developer community.

Almost everyone who is building a new framework, etc is doing it because they think theirs will be better, at least for some particular use case.

It's also tough to characterize what is a "good example" vs a "bad example" per the broad descriptions.

For example, if I release "yet another testing framework" and it helps some healthcare app get released a day sooner and, in that day saves a life. Worth it.

"The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others."

I actually agree that the software development community tends to be too inwardly focused, but this style of argument needs to go.

My main gripe is with startups that make something that is a net-negative to society - which I'd argue Zynga, et al. are actually doing - just sucking money out of society. I don't care if people use it and like those games. Why not make educational games more addictive instead - easier said than done I know.

I think it's wrong to sit back an tell everyone the your choice of project is irrelevant to your social impact - it's irrefutably not!

There's value in helping people to relax I guess.

you lead a life of privilege.

the problems of our world can’t be fixed with software

Software helps fulfilling needs and most of us are just doing our job.

EDIT: I should note that there are plenty of non-developers who are into learning new tools and new technologies and there are many developers who are extremely closed-minded regarding the tools they use. Regardless, I've noticed that in my personal experience, someone who develops software for a living tends to be more open to learning and using new technology than someone who doesn't. I don't think that's a controversial point.

For example, I know of people (and not just older people) who insist upon using only one tab in their web browsers. Keeping track of more than one tab is just "too complicated", and they can't be bothered. When confronted by an attitude like that, what can you do? Sometimes, it's just not possible for you to boil down a complicated concept into a simple default option for users. It's something that Apple and Google (with their multi-million dollar design budgets) have trouble with. As an ordinary developer at a small-ish firm, do I really stand a chance?

Another point is that I don't necessarily make software because I want to change people's lives. I make software because I like making software. It's my vocation, and my avocation. I don't always want to spend the time and research necessary to make whatever I've built easy to use. It's okay to have one-off projects. It's okay to build tools for yourself before building tools for others.

I don't want to say that. I'm rather fond of my family and my friends. Who are these strangers you're asking me to sacrifice for?

I want to look back at my life and say something like, "I labored to make a sustainable business, was able to see my kids grow up and be there for them. All while working towards making the world a little bit happier, maybe employing some people, or let people live a bit happier or a bit better".

(I don't really want to look back on my life and see nothing but crazy deadlines and late nights)

A typical dev could probably work 60% of a normal schedule and afford a comfortable life for their family. You could go home at 1pm every day and that'd be fun, but you can also sacrifice a bit of that and make change.

IMO, life without friends and family is wasted.

surprisingly common in atheists, environmentalists, etc even if they are not traditionally considered religious.

You know what one of the absolute best ways you can give back to the world?

- By spending time with your children and raising them to be good productive people so they can become contributors as well.

- Another way to give back to the world is to spend time with the people you care about which hopefully makes them happier as well.

Thinking that you are a martyr to build software for the greater good is somewhat laughable. In fact you may find that when you write your software what you really have done is put some people out of jobs - that seems to be one of the things software is really good at.

edit: I'm not with the company in the OP.

No, most programmers are probably slaving away writing .NET, PHP, or Java boilerplate for internal invoicing apps and such.

So what's needed is to free up the time and energy of programmers. Once they do that they'll be more motivated to do more useful stuff. I think the most realistic way there is individual empowerment through things like freelancing and lifestyle design.

One way to solve this is to encourage multi-disciplines in school. CS students should interact and do more projects with Pre-med students, psych majors, etc.

So no we don't live a life of privilege. We worked for, and earned, our position.

1) I was born in a wealthy, stable country

2) to, even for said country, well-off parents

3) with a natural inclination to mathematics/logic

4) and access to computers/internet resources from a young age

All of these seem like privilege to me.

We all play the hands we're dealt in life, using whatever calculations make sense to us. We are "graded" by the effectiveness of these calculations. The fact that somebody else given the same inputs could still screw everything up or make the same decisions implies, to me anyways, that we shouldn't worry about or have guilt for our initial conditions.

You could have thrown all that wealth and opportunity away (as many do), but you didn't. Don't undervalue your own efficacy.

I have no idea if they have a natural inclination to mathematics/logic -- and I doubt it would have matter, my brother studies chemistry one of the subjects I suck most at.

I didn't have access to a computer that early, at least not earlier than my classmates, but they spent all their time gaming, I spent (some) of my time with Delphi.

It is true that my life would have been different if I had been born in Rowanda, but I was no better of than those I grew up with.

Just because you are talented at something doesn't equate to job security. Programming has nearly unlimited applications to add value because they can globalize nearly anything: music, travel, art, literature, etc... An average programmer has greater potential to impact more people than an incredible painter.

Most programmers do live a life of privilige. The word privilege doesn't always a negative connotation; people interchage it with spoiled and don't give it a second thought.

I worked hard to get to my position. I spent many hours up late studying in college, I spent and spend many hours up late after college learning the new technologies as they changed, and I spent and spend many hours at my desk late trying to help (in a small way) ensure that the company that is paying me succeeds. I have worked hard to get where I am, and I am aiming even higher.

But...I also had both luck and other people helping along the way. I was born in America, that was my biggest lucky break right there. I was born to parents, that while they didn't earn a lot of money, both invested time and money to help me learn when I was young.

When I was older, I had a great mentor that helped me make the transition from the Army to DBA. I still benefit from the time people in the SQL community spend on writing articles I learn from and even answering my direct questions on places like Ask.SQLServerCentral.com

So, yes I worked for and earned my position. But I know I had help along the way, and I think it is a good thing to turn around and giving a helping hand to others not so far up the path from time to time.

Meanwhile, your new testing framework didn’t make any jobs.

What's your point? Neither did your blogpost.

But if you could say that you really changed ten, what would that feel like?

Ok, now I'm calling shenanigans. You really don't believe my (hypothetical) testing framework can't make 10 peoples' lives better?

If you create a testing framework that is more robust and simpler than a previous one then it makes testers more efficient so a company needs less of them.

If it can be picked up easily and intuitively then it destroys the jobs of people who sell training on testing frameworks.

Your best hope is that your testing framework makes someone else more efficient at doing something innovative which does create jobs.

Then you gave up the greatest influence you could have.

The author fails to note the "butterfly effect" where a small but worthwhile improvement in a development tool could be the key to doing something "really important" ... and raising a child to not just do a single limited task but to engage in a lifetime of helping others - even if by "just" writing marginally improved development tools - can in turn have a huge impact.

As others note, the author's sort of guilt-trip opining serves to tear down people who are doing good for the world. The luxury of early cell phones has translated into a race to bringing cheap ubiquitous computing to the world, what was then multimilliondollar building-filling supercomputers to everyone's pockets, $25 Raspberry Pis to any student who wants one, and the laudable OLPC practically becoming a moot point thanks to wireless low-power computing proliferation.

And among other unexpected consequences to my "extremely privileged life", I'm able to acquire cubic yards of artisan bread and distribute it weekly to the underprivileged/poor/needy - in no small part thanks to me having time to spare, and to include my kids in so they will grow up caring for those not so blessed.

"Strange how much human progress and achievement comes from contemplation of the irrelevant." - Scott Kim

>>Instead of measuring ourselves by the size of our Series A or our average profit per employee, let’s measure in lives changed.<<

In an article that talks about the power of software to scale and effect entire populations of people, just how does he propose to "measure lives changed"? He doesn't, really. And how could he?

For example, if you rescue me from a burning building, you've certainly changed my life. But by how much? Do you now get credit for every accomplishment (or bad act) I do from that day forward? Or, if you're polite and let me get the cab we both hail, which allows me to get to my meeting on time, which allows me to close the sale and get the promotion... you've actually changed my life quite a bit, and you'll almost certainly never know about it.

The problem is, many more lives are changed by actions that are seemingly trivial, and often even unseen, than by those that are visibly heroic. Measurement then becomes impossible. Except we've figured out how to measure it. We use money.

If you're getting paid a princely some to design some system that end users will never see, you can be sure it's because the middleman thinks its valuable. He thinks he will be able to change people's lives. And, his belief will be confirmed when the end users pay him. In exchange for money, the end users get something that makes them better off. And that's the entire basis of capitalism.

So, while it's sexy to say that we have a responsibility to better the world at large because of our privilege, don't overlook the fact that by performing some service for pay, you are already bettering the world at large. By definition.

For most applications you write it's necessary to be aware of the fact that people like yourself aren't the people mostly using the application.

So how many lives have garbagemen changed in the way OP talks about? How much impact do workers in a steel mill have? What about other simple but very common (and very necessary) jobs like the building maintenance and cleaning?

There are a lot of jobs out there that do not really directly advance society or change human lives on a large scale or have any other big impact but they still exist and people make a living off off them. And I would say most jobs are like that - (very) few people ever get the chance to actually do something truly great, meaningful and have real, direct impact on "real people".

And despite all that, what do I contribute to society although I am quite unimportant? I pay my taxes, my insurances and thereby contribute to not only my own well-being. And any software I might have written or I am maintaining is doing something useful somewhere in a very specific context and it helps people do their job which again has some impact on others and enables a company to exist and do something people are willing to spend money on and thereby that company offers jobs and etc...

Nothing wrong with being "just" a small wheel in the humongous machinery that is our world. If you ask me, it is actually (a much welcome and appreciated) luxury of modern life that we can allow space for all those "weirdos", all the diddling-around and all those strange new jobs that "real people" don't understand.

Also, it is pretty megalomaniac to assume everyone working "in IT" or reading HN is really such a rockstar and genius that they might find themselves in a position where they suddenly change the lives of thousands of people. Just because you know C or Javascript or Rails doesn't automatically make you a shining beacon of advancement of the human condition. Many people who are much, much smarter and better educated than you and me are living just as "unimportant" lives and will very likely never have a chance to become the next Einstein or Robert Koch. Learn to be more humble.

And countless scientists and artists who did change the way we think forever only did so long time after they were dead because during their lifetime, they were lucky not to get burned at the stake or starve to death in bitter poverty.

Let's start with yours. Have you ever been in a city (e.g., New York) that was experiencing a sanitation worker strike? Garbage-men are easily some of the most important people in a modern society. The guys that empty my building's dumpster change the lives of hundreds of people every day. I can think of quite a few scientists and doctors who would love to have that level of impact.

Ditto for building maintenance and cleaning. At one point, my university decided that it could save money by cutting back on cleaning staff. Going forward, they would only come by to empty the trash and vacuum our offices once per month; the bathrooms would get cleaned every week or two, but other than that we were to be entirely on our own. We thought that this would be mildly inconvenient- it was worse. Oh, your office-mate had a banana with their lunch? That peel's gonna be in the trash can for a long time...

It turns out that the cleaning people had been changing our lives in numerous significant ways, every day, and when that change stopped happening, we sure as heck noticed. After far too many months, the administration decided that there were better places to cut back, and reinstated more regular cleaning services. And there was much rejoicing.

Your life is the way it is because a very large number of people are doing very unpleasant and/or difficult jobs, often for surprisingly small amounts of money. These people are to be honored and thanked at every opportunity, IMHO, and personally I try to as mindful as I can about the numerous and concrete ways that they change my life.

And I absolutely agree with your last paragraph. Too many places they are still being looked down upon...

I'd argue these people have a greater impact on society than a lot of hackers. These people are contributing directly. Take away the garbagemen (as the city of Toronto did, for a little while) and observe their impact (or rather, smell).

Compare to the innumerable hackers being employed to build, well, a whole lot of nothing, much of which won't ever even see the light of day. Between running out of cash, big-company reorgs, and just plain bad ideas, there's a lot of software being written that simply won't benefit anybody in any significant way.

Humanity is reaching an unprecedented amount of specialization - we used to live in societies where the purpose and contribution of a particular person to the whole is easily understood by everyone. The cooper makes barrels, that the vintner uses, so that we can all enjoy wine. The blacksmith makes tools for everyone else, etc etc. As we abstract and specialize, we need to maintain perspective and never lose track of what role we play in the grand scheme of things.