The Worst Programmer I Know
The Worst Programmer I Know
The great thing about measuring developer productivity is that you can quickly identify the bad programmers. I want to tell you about the worst programmer I know, and why I fought to keep him in the team.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is too simplistic in the opposite direction.
What is with the team that Tim is only pairing.
Are they constantly hiring? Are the hires bad?
If Tim unable to transfer his knowledge, basically holding their hand, making bad hires look worth keeping...he's actually hurting the company.
If Tim is not increasing their solo performance then something is wrong.
You misread that entire thing. It's not that the team was bad, or that there was any significant turnover. Nor is Tim unable to transfer his knowledge, since that's not the point of what he does.
He's a sounding board. A sober voice asking the right questions when you've got your head down hyperfocused on a problem. Someone to talk to just to make sure you're on the right track, even though you were pretty sure anyways. The team would still perform without him, but he improves their quality and performance just by standing in for the duck and actually asking the right questions. It's a very subtle, very delicate job. Not everyone can do it. That's why they keep Tim on the team.
I understand the justification.
I am not convinced.
There is zero evidence that the team performs better or worse since at no point did Tim stop being Tim. There is no base line.
If Tim had tried to pick up some points and the result was the rest of the team stumbling, that would be one thing. Tim didn't, he kept doing his own thing because his team lead is afraid of Tim.
Tim should be fired.
Spoken like a true beaurocrat who only cares about the individual KPIs. If all you look at is the individual, you'll miss the performance of the team.
So you fire Tim. Great! He was a slacker who didn't produce any story points. Now everyone is working individually. The other seniors don't have time to help juniors because they have their own stories to work on. Gotta keep those stats up...don't want to end up like Tim. The juniors start introducing bugs into the code accidentally. That's not good, their stats are going to go down. Except the one that picks up the bug fixes, his stats look great! He's sure to get a promotion doing nothing but fixing everyone else's mistakes. Then the other juniors start catching on, and start pickup up their own bug fixes that they introduced. Now the juniors are spending about half their time fixing bugs they created, while seniors start looking like slackers because they don't produce as many story points. Well something needs to be done about that, because you don't want to end up like Tim...
Any points system can be gamed. If all you look at are the numbers, you'll miss how the team really works.
A beaurocart? Just going to make shit up about me to fit your head cannon?
I never said any of the shit you claimed.
If Tim had tried to pick up some points and the result was the rest of the team stumbling, that would be one thing. Tim didn’t, he kept doing his own thing because his team lead is afraid of Tim.
Tim should be fired.
In either case, all that matters is whether Tim produced story points or that rest of the team produced enough story points, and that Tim should be fired for not doing that. I'm literally just using you're own words...
What evidence do one needs other than the opinion of their teammates and lead?
No one should drop players from a team due to statistics. Otherwise you'd have a non functional team of cheap wannabe-Ronaldos unable to function. Which is the reason kpi based approach fails
I disagree.
If the story is true, Tim coaches the new hires and on boards them into the environment. Tim serves as a sound board for the senior techs, since he's privy to the larger departmental scope. He is the point of contact for the team.
The manager telling the story needs to be fired. Tim is doing his job.
The manager here only serves to add a layer between Tim and management that is ultimately unnecessary, as the story proves.
Fire the manager. Promote Tim.
Whoever is "protecting" Tim should be replaced by Tim.
Tim doesn't want to code, that's fine. Not everyone is cut out to be an individual contributor.
But he is not a senior developer, he is a team lead or a team mentor. He has the wrong title.
It just sounds like Tim was no longer a developer and should have a manager title, as he was training and teaching and on boarding all the time.
If his title was no longer developer, because he wasn't doing any development on his own, said metrics wouldn't apply to him anymore, and the issue would be resolved in a reasonable way.
That was a common sentiment on the hacker news discussion on this story.
I don't disagree.
You never heard of pair programming?
With juniors Tim would pretty much be training them and nudging them on to write better code.
With seniors, like the short article says, it's more a sparring match, trying to find the best solution. You also find a lot of edge cases when someone else works with you together.
I haven't been in a company yet where they have a full time floating position for pair programming, but if it's a senior doing it I can see how it's very beneficial for product quality.
Tim should be fired for insubordinate and his lead should be fired for protecting him.
I get that every shit developer thinks they a Tim or aspires to be one but Tim is a lazy developer doing the fun parts without producing.
Everyone here is assuming Tim is something because you've told he is by the lead.
It's troubling.
Huh, it's like I'm reading something my nephew wrote. He has a tendency to only read the first few sentences, skim through the story, and come back to his conclusions based on those first few sentences.
You would be wrong.
I've read the article a couple times now trying to understand why this resonates so hard with some people.
I have tried to bring up what I feel are valid points and the responses are not engaging with what I've discussed but acting like I lack the ability to understand.
I get that attacking me is easier than addressing my points; I have the social skills of a software engineer after all.
I like code because there is no arguing. It's just math.
People on other hand are caught up in emotions and ego, creating anecdotes to fit their biases.
I can't fix the tangled mess of the human mind, but I can fix the crazy spaghetti code those type of people create.
Firstly, anecdotes aren't "created". Anecdotes happen. The reason a singular anecdote isn't accepted as fact is because without a pattern between isolated incidents there is no way to prove that an anecdote is not simply another isolated incident.
Things like this, needing to explain this concept is why I think you don't understand. Your knowledge of English is clearly rudimentary, and you use words you don't understand to explain concepts you understand less.
It is of no surprise to me that someone who doesn't know how to communicate simultaneously doesn't see the value in good communication. You are cog, cogs are not required to do anything beyond what they do.