[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.