[Grustaf]

Why do you insist on not understanding what it means to write high quality code? In some contexts, like my previous job, it's important. In others, like if you're making games or non-essential apps in your one man indie shop, much less so. Other qualities are much more important. But it doesn't matter if it's "important" or not, it's a concept that exists, and the only thing we are trying to discuss is that.

It's like if we were discussing the IQ of tech founders and you kept interrupting, saying "IQ is not all that matters", "You can't pay your bills with IQ points", "Steve Jobs might not have a genius IQ but he was a great entrepreneur and that is more important". It's all true, but irrelevant, since it's specifically IQ levels we are discussing.

[scarface74]

My thesis is still code is meant to make the computer stuff. That “stuff” can be “Candy Crush” or “reliable code that doesn’t cause a plane to fall out of the sky”.

But writing the best “Enterprise FizzBuzz” that doesn’t solve a problem no matter how good the code is is meaningless. A great developer that writes code that no one uses is not a great developer.

In other words a great developer that can’t ship is worthless - the whole “smart and gets things done” metric.

[Grustaf]

You can think whatever you want, but we are still discussing the quality of the code that they write. Not which skill is more important, what life is like at Google, your inferiority complex about not passing the whiteboard test, or anything else.

FWIW, there are plenty of people who shipping great quality code everyday at Apple, Google etc. Not "FizzBuzz", but concise, human readable, robust, maintainable code. My only contention is that Marco probably wouldn't be able to write code to the standard required at some FAANGs. Casey definitely wouldn't. John quite likely. What do you think?

Keep in mind we are only discussing the code aspect. Not putting up with standups, corporate jargon, middle managers, 9-5 etc.