|
|
|
|
|
|
by tc7
2711 days ago
|
|
|
Hmm, I think I'm reading this differently. There are fun and less-fun parts of programming -- building a new feature? Fun. Analyzing requirements, or doing code review, or spelunking through a crappy and undocumented 3rd party API? Less fun. But all can be part of the same 'job' of developing a feature. The article is saying the amateur is the one who skims off the fun parts, and avoids the others, whereas the professional does the entire job -- gets to done-done, vs just 'it works'. On golf:
You are correct that Tiger Woods did not pick up the ball on the putting green when playing amateur tournaments. I don't think the article's making a point about the official USGA definition of 'amateur'. |
|
|
There are professionals - people who get paid to work on projects for a living - who shirk the less-fun parts. The author seems to want to call those people "amateurs".
There are amateurs - people who are not paid to work on projects - who are very serious about their work and do the less-fun parts. Should we call these people "professionals?"
We need only look at volunteer organizations to see non-professionals doing hard and often thankless work. We see people work hard to excel in amateur sports all the time, even if only to make a personal record. It therefore doesn't seem right to associate "amateur" with the qualities that the author is trying to describe.
I pointed out the USGA example precisely because the author seems to think that those terms and definitions can be applied to golf. Since they can't, they likely can't be applied to other fields either.
Wouldn't "lazy worker" and "good worker" be more appropriate terms than "amateur" and "professional"?