One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
I understand and I'm not saying all of this doesn't matter.
But consider the amount of coding it requires to yet another bank with its thousands pages of regulations to implement and that no-body really needs.
Imagine you actually do all this coding 10x better than the average programmer.
Compare that to working on creating "git" in its early stage.
Imagine for example that you would have insisted in making "git" and its syntax more straightforward, the tool easier to learn. Imagine that you would have done this work just at average speed.
I would argue that in the second case you would have worked in something with drastically more impact than in the first case.
The second developer would have been much more efficient than the first who wouldn't have been more productive, but still, it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.
In the second case you worked on the right things in the right team.
I'm a programming student passionate about software development and tech trends. As a developer entrepreneur, I'm constantly on the lookout for innovative tools
Yes, for banks, for example, you can't use external libraries or speed up the process of writing code, or it will be a mess. You have tools, and you should know when to use them.
It’s not just about writing code; it’s about being the engineer who picks the perfect plan for success.
One of the most salient features of our Tech Hiring culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted.
I understand and I'm not saying all of this doesn't matter.
But consider the amount of coding it requires to yet another bank with its thousands pages of regulations to implement and that no-body really needs.
Imagine you actually do all this coding 10x better than the average programmer.
Compare that to working on creating "git" in its early stage.
Imagine for example that you would have insisted in making "git" and its syntax more straightforward, the tool easier to learn. Imagine that you would have done this work just at average speed.
I would argue that in the second case you would have worked in something with drastically more impact than in the first case.
The second developer would have been much more efficient than the first who wouldn't have been more productive, but still, it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.
In the second case you worked on the right things in the right team.
That's when you are really 10x.
Yes, for banks, for example, you can't use external libraries or speed up the process of writing code, or it will be a mess. You have tools, and you should know when to use them.
It’s not just about writing code; it’s about being the engineer who picks the perfect plan for success.
What does success mean though ?
I think that doing the right things is more important than doing things right (or fast).