[agentultra]

The problem I had with Patrick's essay is how derogatory it is to what we do.

I am a programmer because it's what I like to do. People pay me money to do it. And when I go home I read about it, talk to others about it, and I practice, practice, practice. I think about how I can write better software, reduce the amount of bugs, test better designs, and improve my productivity. I think about programming all of the time.

And like Jacques, I'm not afraid to tell others that I'm a programmer. I think most people understand what that is by now. I write programs for computers. If I say "Systems Analyst," or "Solution Architect," they will probably look at me funny and ask what that means. In an interview... it will probably be passed over without a second thought. So I call myself a programmer.

And I call myself a programmer with a bit of pride. It isn't an easy profession and involves far more than typing in a bunch of things that make computers do stuff. Experienced employers will have realized this before sitting some one such as myself down in an interview. They want someone with enthusiasm for the craft, the experience building many different systems, and the ability to learn. There was a time when I would have accepted any programming job. However there comes a point where talking to yet another company who just wants to replace a cog in their machine becomes a waste of your time. It is hard to be good at this job and experience and ability has a cost associated with them.

So yes, I am a programmer. Thanks Jacques for writing this.

[generalk]

The point of Patrick's essay isn't "Programming is lame" or "you shouldn't be proud of your programming accomplishments." How did anyone take that away?

  > It isn't an easy profession and involves far more than typing in a bunch of things that make computers do stuff.

This is true. Nobody said that wasn't the case.

  > I'm not afraid to tell others that I'm a programmer. I 
  > think most people understand what that is by now. I write 
  > programs for computers. 

Look, I love writing code. I <3 proper testing. I take pride in my work and try to provide the best code I can possibly write.

That said, coding is what we do to achieve something. Maybe you're trying to make it easier for your support team to track tickets, or helping your client's customers save the most money.

I get that you're proud of your development skills, but at some point your software has to solve a business need, and you need to understand what the need is and how your software is solving it. All the unit tests and properly factored code won't mean anything if you don't. You'll write unnecessary features, or miss writing necessary ones.

Patrick's point as far as I understood it was that we all understand this but we're not billing ourselves that way. If I'm in an interview, or discussing my work with a non-technical associate, I emphasize my ability to understand business needs and write software to meet them. When I talk to technical folks, I emphasize that I unit- and integration-test all of my code and that I understand why DRY code is great.

  > The problem I had with Patrick's essay is how derogatory 
  > it is to what we do.

On the contrary, I think it celebrated what we do. Not the technical aspects -- squeezing performance out of underpowered machines or designing remarkably simple architectures -- but the final outcomes. This app saved us millions per year. These new dashboard reports helped us earn 20% than expected this quarter.

[agentultra]

“Programmer” sounds like “anomalously high-cost peon who types some mumbo-jumbo into some other mumbo-jumbo.” If you call yourself a programmer, someone is already working on a way to get you fired.

That sounds derogatory to me. His opinion is that business types could care less about what you do. You're not a programmer but an exploitable resource. Since when is being a crafts-person and being proud of your work and what you do bad?

I get that you're proud of your development skills, but at some point your software has to solve a business need, and you need to understand what the need is and how your software is solving it.

I'm in the business of producing good software. How does calling myself a programmer have anything to do with what you just said?

It's a matter of perception. Patrick thinks people think programmers are clueless navel-gazing cogs who don't have a grip on reality. Of course nothing could be further from the truth -- a good programmer is probably more in touch with the needs of the business than the ignorant stakeholder who thinks programmers just type in a bunch of stuff. I think this perception is a disservice to both programmers and business people alike. I do not doubt that there are people in the world who perceive programmers in the way Patrick describes... but I wouldn't work for them for anything less than a big six-figure salary and very gracious vacation allowance. I think most people understand that programmers make software and software solves problems for businesses and consumers which makes money. Therefore programmers must be pretty important.

So yes, I still call myself a programmer. If I catch wind that the person interviewing me views me as a 'peon' I walk. If that's what they're looking for it's their loss. They can figure it out later I'm sure and might come back to me when their spending 80% of their time and budget fixing the errors their "peon" introduced into their software.

Good programmers are hard to find. I don't see anything wrong with calling myself a programmer.

[generalk]

  > Since when is being a crafts-person and being proud of 
  > your work and what you do bad?

Nobody said it was. Not the original article, not me, not anyone.

  > I'm in the business of producing good software.

I don't know, maybe you are.

Right now, I'm in the healthcare business. My main client is a medicare company and they want people to sign up for their plans and fill prescriptions, preferably for the cheaper generics that save them money but still provide therapy required.

I meet those goals by writing well-architected software with solid test coverage. I make my job easier on myself by making my deployment a single-click affair. That's part of being a good developer, but that's not what I'm paid for. I'm paid to meet business goals. We got this client by writing software that meets those goals better than their original vendor. If someone comes along who writes poorly-architected messes but that achieve those goals better my client will leave me for them. I will be disgusted as a programmer that this happened, but it only makes sense.

  > I don't see anything wrong with calling myself a programmer.

That's fine. Call yourself whatever you want. But -- and this is the entire point of Patrick's article! -- assuming that people understand the value of a good programmer is a mistake. Rather than dismissing folks who don't instantly comprehend your brilliance, maybe you might try explaining to them the value that you provide in terms they can understand.

[agentultra]

If someone comes along who writes poorly-architected messes but that achieve those goals better my client will leave me for them. I will be disgusted as a programmer that this happened, but it only makes sense.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I disagree that people perceive "programmers" as highly-paid peons. If they did, why would you want to work for them? There are companies who are desperate for good programmers and recognize that good programmers are hard to come by. Negotiating with them is much less adversarial, I assure you.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying. I think we can both agree that a good programmer understands their role in the business and should view their practice holistically as a part of a much bigger entity. However, I don't think that people universally see programmers as overly-paid gurus or what-have-you. Assuming they want skilled programmers to work for them, why would they look for replaceable cogs and peons?

The true cost of hiring those kinds of programmers will not be apparent until 5 years down the road when you're spending 80% of your budget and time fixing bugs and putting out fires from pissed off client who cannot believe you would ship them such a shoddy product.

Again.. maybe there are people in the world who still do not know what a programmer does or the value of hiring good programmers. I would argue that they're probably in the minority or hiring for a position that doesn't require a lot of skill. In that case perhaps Patrick is right -- but again, why would you want to work for them unless you're desperate to fill in your H1B requirements or you're straight out of school and have no experience. A good programmer can do a lot better in my experience.

[jes5199]

I know that you're fighting the good fight, but I just don't have it in me to sell the concept that I'm going to produce software to solve someone's problems. I'm only interested in joining teams where the decision to write high-quality software was already made - and I provide my skill to people who know that's what they need.