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

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 Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Pythonic Defined

Introduction Losing is Good Strings Dictionaries Conclusion Introduction Veterans and novices alike of Python will hear the term "pythonic" thrown around, and even a number of the veterans don't know what it means. There are times I do not know what it means, but that doesn't mean I can define a pretty good idea of what "pythonic" really means. Now, it has been defined at times as being whatever the BDFL decides, but we'll pull that out of the picture. I want to talk about what the word means for us today, and how it applied to what we do in the real world. Languages have their strengths and their idioms (ways of doing things), and when you exploit those you embrace the heart of that language. You can often tell when a programmer writing in one language is actually more comfortable with another, because the code they right is telltale of the other language. Java developers are notorious for writing Java in every language they get their hands on. Ho