[gyardley]

'Coding in your spare time' isn't quite as extreme as having no life outside of tech. Hey, I code a bit in my spare time too, so let me clarify.

It's the people who don't do anything else but code that I've, in my experience, had real issues with - they might make great computer scientists, but as a group they're not very good in a team of software developers. Arrogance, problems cooperating with others, excessive nitpicking, 'engineer's disease', poor social skills...

I'm not saying you're guaranteed to have any or all of those problems if all you do 24/7 is code, but I've seen it one hell of a lot, and I'm perplexed why this type of person tends to be preferred over more well-rounded individuals. It's not like they're actually better at their jobs.

I'm not arguing for going through an organization and sacking everyone who codes on the weekend. But I strongly suspect that if interviewers didn't glorify the obsessive 24/7 coder, either deliberately or subconsciously as 'what a real developer looks like', we'd have both a much more diverse tech industry and a much more functional one.

[qb45]

> much more diverse tech industry and a much more functional one.

As a Darwinist of sorts, I'm afraid that if this actually were true, we would be seeing some serious disruption of those nerds by much more functional diverse teams. The cat's been of the bag for so many years that somebody ought to have exploited it by now. But so far, it seems that one poster child example of a company which made tons of money bringing computing to the masses is Apple, under the lead of no one else but You Know Who, and (allegedly) with quite obsessive, arrogant, nitpicking and abrasive people working under him.

[ubernostrum]

The cat's been of the bag for so many years that somebody ought to have exploited it by now.

I'd like to send you over here: http://danluu.com/tech-discrimination/

And to the real-world examples of the market needing quite a long time to correct for sufficiently strong biases in the culture.

[kamaal]

>>But I strongly suspect that if interviewers didn't glorify the obsessive 24/7 coder

Software industry isn't the first or the last place you will see this.

The world as a whole is giant stack ranking system. Every thing from college admissions to interviews is basically a comparative process, sort of a close-to-merit ecosystem where those who put above average effort, get above average returns.

And hubris isn't new to tech. Doctors, Politicians, in fact hubris is a dominant psychological trait among top people in any field.

[jholman]

I attempted to make my previous comment neutral about the correctness of your claims; it was intended to be a refutation of tptacek's comment. And I apologize for oversimplifying your assertion to be about "coding in your spare time", which was inaccurate (although your original phrasing, "obsessive wretch", was sufficiently shitty that I thought I was doing you a favour by rephrasing, but I now agree that I didn't do the correct rephrasing).

As for your claim itself, I think you have a good point, but you're a bit overextending its consequences, and ralfn's upthread response to you is right on.

I think you're totally right that diversity of opinion and interest is a super useful supplementary skill. And I strongly agree that a team needs to have that diversity on the product side to product useful products. And I agree that a team somewhat benefits from having not just a few product specialists who have that diversity; it's essential to have a few, but it's also helpful to have lots of people with diverse perspectives. And sure, being extremely tech focused (being an "obsessive wretch") is obviously inimical to that diversity. And yeah, there's some unreasonable glorification going on.

But I think there's also something reasonable about that glorification. Although deciding what to build is a huge part of the team's job, also building it is a huge part. Invariably the part that takes more person-hours, at least in a business large enough to have employees. And in my experience, the "obsessive wretches" actually do tend to be somewhat better at this part of the job. Not overwhelmingly better, but better. Not universally so, but as a tendency. That's just my observation from my medium-length career, and I accept your claim that you have different anecdata; if you have useful actual data I'm open to persuasion.

Moreover, very frequently in this industry we hire people who frankly are not currently knowledgeable enough to do the job we're hiring for, but we hire them anyway because it often works out, and we don't want to pay the asking price of the people who already know how to do the job we're hiring for. Call it good (it allows new entrants), call it bad (lots of wheel-reinvention, ageism, etc), but I allege that it's very common. So, who's going to learn faster? My bet is on the monomaniac; maybe this is unfounded. So, I think this is a rational reason to prefer the obsessives.

And I guess I should add that someone who has literally no other interests... okay, I'm with you. That person is likely to be a problem. But I will continue to favour people for whom outside study is one of their primary hobbies over people who do it a bit, and I'll continue to favour people who do it a bit over people who don't do it at all. And note that the example in TFA was not about someone with no other interests.... it was about one individual who did build a fibre-channel network over the weekend, and another individual who realized that they would never do so.