Skip to main content

The Problem with Coders' Technology Focus

Coders focus on code. Coders focus on toolchains and development practices. Coders focus on commits and line counts. Coders focus on code, but we don’t focus as well on people.

We need to take a step back and remember why we write code, or possibly re-evaluate why we write code. Many of us might be doing it for the wrong reasons. Maybe you don’t think there can be a wrong reason, and I’m not entirely sure. What I am certain of is that some reasons to code lend themselves to certain attitudes and weights about the code and other motivations might mandate that you take yourself more or less seriously.

We’re taking the wrong motivations seriously and we’re not giving enough attention and weight to the reasons for code that we should.

The most valid and important reason we can code is not what hackers think it is. A good hack isn’t good for its own sake. No programming language or tool is inherently better than another. The technical merits of the approach or of the individual are not the most important factors to consider.

Our impact on people is the only thing that truly matters.

Twitter isn’t great because they developed amazing distributed services internally to support the load requirements of their service, but because they connect millions of voices across the globe.

RSS isn’t great because it encapsulates content in an easily parseable format for client software to consume, but because it connects writers to the readers who care most about their thoughts and feelings and ideas.

The amazing rendering tools built in-house by the likes of Disney aren’t amazing because of their attention to physical based light simulations and the effort required to coordinate the massive render farms churning out frames for new big budget films, but for their ability to tell wonderful stories that touch people.

The next time you find yourself on a forum chastising someone for writing their website in PHP, pause and ask yourself why that was the more important question to ask them than “Does this fulfill something important to you or your users?”

When you are reviewing code and want to stop a merge because you disagree with a technical approach, take a step back and ask yourself if the changes have a positive impact on the people your product serves.

Every time you find yourself valuing the technical contributions of team mates and community members, make sure those contributions translate into enriching and fulfilling the lives of that community and your workplace, before the technical needs.

Nothing that is important can be so without being important for people first.

Comments

vincent said…
What you're basically saying is that the end should justify the means more often than we think.

It's certainly true that coders prefer to focus on the code and sometimes lose track of what the purpose of the code actually is, but it's also this attention to "what's important for the code" that makes the end possible.

The "it works, so lets leave it like this" argument is usually followed a few weeks later by "Hey, it stopped working, that's odd" or "I can't implement this new feature with the code we wrote a few weeks ago", and the code get's rewritten into what the coders originally wanted in the first place.

As usual, it's a compromise; Don't waste time making the code more beautiful than it needs to be, but take your time to make it reliable and maintainable.

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

On Pruning Your Passions

We live in a hobby-rich world. There is no shortage of pastimes to grow a passion for. There is a shortage of one thing: time to indulge those passions. If you're someone who pours your heart into that one thing that makes your life worthwhile, that's a great deal. But, what if you've got no shortage of interests that draw your attention and you realize you will never have the time for all of them?

If I look at all the things I'd love to do with my life as a rose bush I'm tending, I realize that careful pruning is essential for the best outcome. This is a hard lesson to learn, because it can mean cutting beautiful flowers and watching the petals fall to the ground to wither. It has to be done.

I have a full time job that takes a lot of my mental energy. I have a wife and a son and family time is very important in my house. I try to read more, and I want to keep up with new developments in my career, and I'm trying to make time for simple, intentional relaxing t…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…