I've become more skeptical of this supposed Hacker/Manager dichotomy as of late. Not only is there "variety among humans"... there is variety within humans. In particular, in my experience most GOOD managers ARE hackers. Most great hackers are concerned with the broader implications of what they are working on.
Wow, this is actually very helpful. I just sent it to my two business partners - both business guys - and I honestly think it's going to help them sleep easier.
The author treats a "hacker" as some kind of sub-human species and write an article on owning a "hacker" that reads as if it was a book on owning a dog or something. Hacker != Lack of social skills. "Insults skills of other workers, doesn't know how to dress, plays games on company time, talks to friends on the phone." I don't know what kind of people this guy hires, but I definitely would not hire someone like that. Let's not box everyone who like to write code into a stereotype. I seriously doubt this is based on reality.
Well, on the flip side, he also writes about managers as if they are all stamped out from the same cookie cutter mold. As a former hacker/engineer now manager, I generally thought this way off on both sides of the fence. And I laugh at the notion that I "closely resemble about 40% of the population." I can maybe relate to that much of the population, but resemble them... nope.
As far as the author's understanding of "hackers" and all their social shortcomings, those are clearly extreme to the point of being generally false. Initially I was rather shocked this could still be someone's understanding of hierarchy in software organizations. Then, I read his "bibliography" at the end. His main source for comparing managers and hackers has a copyright of 1984. WTF!?! Sure there are a small handful of technology related books that withstood such a test of time (e.g. The Mythical Man-Month), but obviously "Please Understand Me" is not one that should still be quoted for relevance... at least not the way he's using it.
The other thing to note is the author's bio. He is beyond doubt an extremely intelligent person with a litany of academic credentials, but scant mention of "real world" experience to back-up the claims being made in the book/article. I'd even go so far to say he did put a lot of effort and thought behind the writing. It's just a bit off the mark from my experiences... which should be similar to about 40% of the population. :)
"Most hackers are willing to explain terms. Be ready for condescension; it's not intended as an insult, but if you don't know the words, she probably has to talk down to you at first to explain them."
If you are being condescending, you're Doing It Wrong. For the most part people who don't understand computers aren't stupid, just ignorant.
Yes, but the problem is it's hard to know exactly how ignorant the person you're explaining it to is.
For example, I recently had to explain just-in-time compilation to a manager. If I had launched into an explanation like "well, it's dynamically translated, so the compiler is generating machine code at runtime," I would've gotten a blank stare in return. So without knowing where the holes in his knowledge were, I had to begin with "OK, so you know code is like a big list of instructions, right?", which I'm sure came off as condescending.
He lost me immediately with the first box entry for Managers. In my experience there's been a stronger correlation with morality and contribution in hackers than in managers. And note he is using the definition of hackers as "programmers" not as "breaks into systems". If he used the latter, I could agree with his generalization. But in this case it seems backward.
I think it's worth reading further. He points out managers' preoccupation with morality, then says: "Measures own contribution to society by the extent to which he adds to rules and sees that people live by following rules. Tends to equate rules with morality or the good of society."
This is the morality of someone who wants to create the rules which others live by. When I think back to how managers react when someone ignores their rules, a lot of it could have been moral indignation. As if you rejected society's rules. (Which is kind of true, as they're among society's rulemakers.)
On the other hand, the hacker "Does not equate rules with morality or the good of society." A different moral view.
He's not talking about either an ordinary programmer or a cracker but the Mythical Genius Hacker(tm): Yes, I am serious; a hacker on a roll may be able to produce, in a period of a few months, something that a small development group (say, 7-8 people) would have a hard time getting together over a year. Whether claims of programmer productivity variation are true or not, I'm dubious that the most productive programmer necessarily goes by the title "Hacker" or necessarily operates in the "mad genius" fashion.
As a software engineer, I'd encourage managers to avoid the "hacker" who is more productive because only he understands the poorly designed system he created. The genius hacker myth is counter-productive here.
We had a "Genius Hacker(tm)" where I currently work. He got projects done quick and they stayed working for a long time. He left and we needed to extend some projects or something would break on another. Everyone agreed, it was some of the most horrible code any of us had ever seen. Also, over-engineering is an understatement. He still plagues us years later as we find his legacy floating around.
I think sometime poor design or horrible code is quite subjective. For example, when I write complex query for performance critical system, and no other colleagues understand, is that my fault?
I'm talking about metaclasses in Python for the hell of it. I'm talking one-liners that consist of map, lambda, map, lambda, filter, map, map, map, join. I'm talking about inconsistent indenting and one letter variable names everywhere. I'm talking about huge monolithic code bases, all of which he wrote, containing code copy and pasted from each other instead of making a library. I could go on but I'll spare you. I agree that "poor design" and "horrible code" is quite subjective but sometimes it's an easier call than others.
Not if you wrote clear supporting documentation appropriate for an audience that will not be familiar with your particular conceptualization. This in itself is a real art.
Hmm, even Digg wasn't too keen on your asshole comments, what made you think Hacker News would tolerate you? For someone who's so concerned with productivity, you sure seem to have a lot of time to waste telling other people what they should do.
