[rorymarinich]

I might be wrong, but I think the term "rockstar programmer" originated to describe a certain type of programmer who's outspoken, interesting, and possibly controversial. The first person who comes to mind for me is DHH from 37signals, who's a very good programmer, but who's also known for arousing vast kerfluffles with things he says in public.

The fact of the matter is that programming is very unglamorous. It's not a job that often entails the sort of creative passion associated with making music or film or literature; even when we're talking just about the kind of programming that's meant to serve that kind of creative function, it's still rarely as visceral as a good rock song. (The only piece of programming that ever moved me like that was We Feel Fine.) So using the term "rock star" serves to inflate the egos of people who might otherwise not feel like their work was important or meaningful.

When I hear a company say they're looking for "rockstar programmers" I usually take it to mean that they're looking to genuinely care about the programmer they're hiring. They don't just want a code monkey, they want somebody awesome and colorful who'll really be a meaningful part of their team. (Whether these companies actually believe that is another question. I'd bet most of the people who use the phrase are full of shit.)

[mduerksen]

Fearlessness of being controversial could indeed be a good charactistic of both a rockstar and a programmer who wants to make a difference. Yet, I can't image that's the quality a company is looking for when they search for a rockstar programmer. And if they do, I can't image that's what they will get.

Being egomanic and making a difference for the better is hardly the same.

[rorymarinich]

Well, that's why looking for a "rockstar programmer" probably isn't the best thing to actively seek in an employee. Not unless you're only looking to be a "cool rad" company and not an efficient company that gets things done.