I wouldn’t feel bad about this. I don’t think it’s possible to write evergreen advice that’s actually useful that won’t also be abused by karma whoring dickheads. The alternative, no reusable advice, is much bleaker.
The dunning Kruger research was useful, and I’m glad we have it, even if it means a horde of uncomprehending jerks posts the same Wikipedia link into every thread.
Indeed. I think the condition described in this article is alive and well today.
I try to help people with the software I work on whenever I can, because it’s the right thing to do – but the altogether too common sense of apparent entitlement and lack of basic desire to read can be draining. If anything, the chief issue with this article is that it’s too long: the people who most ought to read it will never make it to the end.
It’s not much of a surprise people took “what have you tried” and became jerks about it. It helped me a ton, though. My career started in 2011 and this article was published in 2013, I remember reading it. I was struggling to get traction in my work and this article enlightened me on how to get my superiors to help me.
That’s not to say it should have or should not have been posted, but its hardly some terrible crime against the software development industry. It at least helped one developer.
I respect the author for this write-up. As I read original article, I kept remembering why MIT switched from Scheme to Python. Particularly, the point about today’s programmers doing “basic science” on their libraries to figure out how to use them. We also get regular references on tech forums to fact that most paid programmers are required to sling together whatever works in least amount of time. Combining those means trying to get answers or code from others by default that plugs into their solution is a rational move by those kind of programmers.
We can argue whether it’s the best, should we answer them, and so on. I just can’t cut them down for it if that’s the kind of programmers and results the industry is actually paying for. Industry practices and incentives look to be root cause. Maybe colleges, too.
I wouldn’t feel bad about this. I don’t think it’s possible to write evergreen advice that’s actually useful that won’t also be abused by karma whoring dickheads. The alternative, no reusable advice, is much bleaker.
The dunning Kruger research was useful, and I’m glad we have it, even if it means a horde of uncomprehending jerks posts the same Wikipedia link into every thread.
Indeed. I think the condition described in this article is alive and well today.
I try to help people with the software I work on whenever I can, because it’s the right thing to do – but the altogether too common sense of apparent entitlement and lack of basic desire to read can be draining. If anything, the chief issue with this article is that it’s too long: the people who most ought to read it will never make it to the end.
It’s not much of a surprise people took “what have you tried” and became jerks about it. It helped me a ton, though. My career started in 2011 and this article was published in 2013, I remember reading it. I was struggling to get traction in my work and this article enlightened me on how to get my superiors to help me.
That’s not to say it should have or should not have been posted, but its hardly some terrible crime against the software development industry. It at least helped one developer.
I respect the author for this write-up. As I read original article, I kept remembering why MIT switched from Scheme to Python. Particularly, the point about today’s programmers doing “basic science” on their libraries to figure out how to use them. We also get regular references on tech forums to fact that most paid programmers are required to sling together whatever works in least amount of time. Combining those means trying to get answers or code from others by default that plugs into their solution is a rational move by those kind of programmers.
We can argue whether it’s the best, should we answer them, and so on. I just can’t cut them down for it if that’s the kind of programmers and results the industry is actually paying for. Industry practices and incentives look to be root cause. Maybe colleges, too.