Software Career Anti-Patterns(daedtech.com)
daedtech.com
Software Career Anti-Patterns
https://daedtech.com/software-career-anti-patterns-career-development-by-coincidence/
8 comments
Generic title but article is mostly about is speaking at conferences is waste of time. The answer would depend obviously on who is in the audience and if talk gets recorded.
This is an essay about maximizing personal outcomes. Maximize for income, for impact, for prestige, for a software outcome, you can differentiate on all these things but you are still essentially a thief.
Software is a collaboration and I would submit that most engineers have accepted this for one reason or another. The outliers who maximize their own personal outcomes are useless.
Software is a collaboration and I would submit that most engineers have accepted this for one reason or another. The outliers who maximize their own personal outcomes are useless.
I got lost at the thief part. I agree that knowledge sharing is good for both giving back to the community and as a goal in itself. But why does it make sense to call a thief someone that contributes to a community, even if done for self oriented goals?
I see this as highlighting something else - differing philisophies with goals and values and talking past one another. Many in software aren't interested in optimizing career itself but the skills for their own sake.
Similiarly "outcomeism" vs "skills" is another area of differences in views. Talking only of outcomes to a skills person can seem charlatanish - making promises without the hows and important fine distinctions. Similiarly to the outcomes skills details don't matter - while ignoring the details which lead to the outcome and even treating them with contempt.
Similiarly "outcomeism" vs "skills" is another area of differences in views. Talking only of outcomes to a skills person can seem charlatanish - making promises without the hows and important fine distinctions. Similiarly to the outcomes skills details don't matter - while ignoring the details which lead to the outcome and even treating them with contempt.
This reminds me of the "maximizer vs satisficer" dynamic.
Would you be kind to expand on that a bit? I have never heard about such dichotomy, and genuinely curious. Thank you.
It's an idea from decision-making theory. A maximizer would try to review all possible options, then select the best one; a satisficer would evaluate each option in turn, then select the first one which meets their criteria.
It's a way of looking at rational decision-making which accommodates the fact that information is incomplete and time is a factor; the optimal choice may not be the maximal one, because the cost of evaluating the options must be factored into the decision.
It's a way of looking at rational decision-making which accommodates the fact that information is incomplete and time is a factor; the optimal choice may not be the maximal one, because the cost of evaluating the options must be factored into the decision.