×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Truth About Hiring "Rock Star" Developers

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the bang-for-your-buck dept.

Businesses 487

snydeq writes "You want the best and the brightest money can buy. Or do you? Andrew Oliver offers six hard truths about 'rock-star' developers, arguing in favor of mixed skill levels with a focus on getting the job done: 'A big, important project has launched — and abruptly crashed to the ground. The horrible spaghetti code is beyond debugging. There are no unit tests, and every change requires a meeting with, like, 40 people. Oh, if only we'd had a team of 10 "rock star" developers working on this project instead! It would have been done in half the time with twice the features and five-nines availability. On the other hand, maybe not. A team of senior developers will often produce a complex design and no code, thanks to the reasons listed below.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't hire union workers (-1, Troll)

Nyder (754090) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187729)

They need 3 times as long to get the job done.

Rock Star Developers, seriously? None of them are that good.

Re:Don't hire union workers (5, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187747)

Rock Star Developers, seriously? None of them are that good.

Agreed. Rock Stars suck as developers. And most of them suck at rock, as well.

Re:Don't hire union workers (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187755)

I'm not sure about how unions work in America, but in Germany the purpose of an organised workplace is to have a forum between workers and management. The union wants the company to be productive because that secures jobs and usually results in higher wages. The management want the workers to be happy because then staff turnover is reduced, productivity increased and honesty maintained.

The UK and the USA are falling further behind as they put short-term executive profit over the needs of all classes of people.

Re:Don't hire union workers (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187789)

in Germany the purpose of an organised workplace is to have a forum between workers and management. The union wants the company to be productive because that secures jobs and usually results in higher wages.

Sounds like Germany still has labor unions. In the USA, we have organized crime posing as labor union organizers, and their purpose is to tax the workers to pay for hookers and blow for mobsters and politicians.

Re:Don't hire union workers (0, Troll)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187837)

Have you seen the rate of Germany's GDP decrease in the recent years? I think it's hard to claim the USA and UK are falling back when pitted against Germany for that reason.

Re:Don't hire union workers (4, Funny)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187913)

I think it's hard to claim the USA and UK are falling back when pitted against Germany for that reason.

USA and UK are falling back to slave labor.

echo -e "HEAD / HTTP/1.1\nHost: slashdot.org\n\n" | nc slashdot.org 80

curl -I http://slashdot.org/

Re:Don't hire union workers (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187963)

USA and UK are falling back to slave labor.

Do you even have a credible source to back that up? Our minimum wages in the UK have been increasing, which seems to counter the implication of slave labor type situations.

curl -I http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]

Curl is not usually available on older UNIX systems. Also, I haven't verified in years whether or not Slashdot still produces those headers.

Re:Don't hire union workers (4, Insightful)

Coisiche (2000870) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188167)

Actually, thanks to workfare [boycottworkfare.org] it seems that people do end up doing work for less than minimum wage. There is an, admittedly anecdotal, story that a woman was dismissed from a paying job and then ended up at the same place doing the same job under workfare. Not exactly the definition of slave labour but makes a mockery of minimum wage laws.

Re:Don't hire union workers (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188203)

Do you even have a credible source to back that up?

http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/ [slaverybyanothername.com]

http://www.google.com/search?q=illegal+immigrants+working+us+farms [google.com]

Re:Don't hire union workers (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188253)

I don't understand, how does that apply to both the UK and US simultaneously?

Re:Don't hire union workers (3, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187947)

I don't. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/gdp-growth [tradingeconomics.com]

Looks as if Germany's GDP is managing just fine.

Re:Don't hire union workers (2)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188031)

Have you seen the rate of Germany's GDP decrease in the recent years? I think it's hard to claim the USA and UK are falling back when pitted against Germany for that reason.

What are you talking about? One of those three countries still has a solid AAA credit rating and is now loaning money at negative interest, the two others do not (well UK has the rating but has been warned it will fall unless things improve). The country in question is Germany. US is failing and UK is not looking too great either.

Re:Don't hire union workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188065)

Credit ratings agency Moody's has changed its outlook for Germany's AAA credit rating to negative, the first step towards a possible downgrade.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18963810

Re:Don't hire union workers (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188151)

Only because of the Eurozone crisis.

Re:Don't hire union workers (4, Insightful)

Mr0bvious (968303) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188147)

Surely the recent past has shown you what 'ratings' are worth.... These are the same people who stamped all those dubious mortgage backed securities as AAA, remember how that turned out..

These ratings are simply an opinion that is correct until it isn't - it's worth bat shit.

Re:Don't hire union workers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187883)

Your arguments would probably be more listened to if you didn't use Marxist terminology. It's a bit like saying that your developers need Lebensraum and tends to turn people off.

Re:Don't hire union workers (3, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188081)

"Your arguments would probably be more listened to if you didn't use Marxist terminology"

It's not "marxist terminology" capitalism is enforced and came into being by men with guns, only in america would someone say something so ignorant of history. More proof america is under the spell of mass political propaganda.

Re:Don't hire union workers (1)

skeletal (2597067) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187991)

Labor unions are what is causing problems for the auto companies in Europe. They have too many factories with too many workers, and not selling all the cars produced in Europe, but can't close the unprofitable factories or lay off people who aren't needed, because labor unions won't let them do that.

Re:Don't hire union workers (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188103)

Well, in America "unions" mean very powerful quasai-political entities like SEIU or UAW which basically make american labor unprofitable (see the insane costs of auto-workers). These "unions" extort huge fees from their often-unwilling constituents and in turn donate large sums to our Democratic/socialist party.

Source: my uncle worked in Detroit from high school-> retirement. He loves American cars but told me it's one of the most corrupt systems out there.

Re:Don't hire union workers (4, Informative)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188317)

Well, in America "unions" mean very powerful quasai-political entities like SEIU or UAW which basically make american labor unprofitable (see the insane costs of auto-workers). These "unions" extort huge fees from their often-unwilling constituents and in turn donate large sums to our Democratic/socialist party.

Source: my uncle worked in Detroit from high school-> retirement. He loves American cars but told me it's one of the most corrupt systems out there.

Not all countries unions work the same way. I know that here in the UK unions are very different from unions in the US and also different to unions in Germany.

The fact that the union system in the US was infiltrated in organised crime does not mean that happened anywhere else. I think it might be one of the only developed western countries where this happened actually, it is certainly not the case in the UK.

Re:Don't hire union workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188125)

The UK and the USA are falling further behind as they put short-term executive profit over the needs of all classes of people.

You can add Australia to that list.

Re:Don't hire union workers (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188297)

Every time somebody brings up the topic of unions in the US, I find myself wondering whether "union" is one of those terms like "potato chips" or "football" that means something completely different over there.

Re:Don't hire union workers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188363)

Bloody socialists!

Re:Don't hire union workers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188413)

"a forum between workers and management"

What bollocks. When you come to work for me I want to know one thing; that what I have tasked you to do is done. A forum is not required. A forum? What are you Germans, a bunch of girly-men who want to get together with management and talk about your feelings and the new drapes for your bedrooms? Good grief.

"The UK and the USA are falling further behind as they put short-term executive profit over the needs of all classes of people."

Classes huh? What are these classes? The bourgeoisie and the proletariat no doubt? Comrade, your Marx is showing. Perhaps we can send Obama over to participate in your forums, he can tell you all about life as ruler of the 57 states.

Summarized (3, Insightful)

war4peace (1628283) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187733)

The whole article could be summarized like this: "We have no fucking clue how to manage rockstar developers".
If management or MBAs don't click with devs, the project is ripe for crashing.

Troll Article? (4, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187749)

Article is weak on expertise.

1) No, you don't need 10, idiot, you just need ONE, and about a dozen or so relatively obedeient and competent non-novice developers.

2) Those weren't senior developers.

Re:Troll Article? (2)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187841)

No, you don't need 10, idiot, you just need ONE, and about a dozen or so relatively obedeient and competent non-novice developers.

Some rules:
-The definition of 'rock star' is relative to the teams (both past and present). The rock star in one team can just be so-so in a different team.
- If everyone in the team knows (even if they don't publicly acknowledge) who their best guy is, all other egos are easily kept under control. No one wants to be more of an asshole than the best guy.
- By using both previous rules at the same time, the best thing you can do is find the brightest possible guy that is also humble. You might think this is asking for the impossible, but not so much. For example I can bet you that on the exit door of Google I/O you can find thousands of developers that were considered 'rock stars' in their companies that were having some internal battle after the sessions (you know, thinking, "Do I really suck so much?", "I don't even know where to start...").

Also, a fellow developer of mine used to say "Don't do today what you can leave for torromow; it's possible that you don't have to do it after all". When he said that I was in my 20s, he was north of 40. Back then, he sounded like a slacker. Fuck, was he right.

Re:Troll Article? (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188139)

Bullshit. The definition of a "Rock Star" developer is that they have a history of producing hits. It's not relative.

Re:Troll Article? (5, Insightful)

YttriumOxide (837412) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188445)

Bullshit. The definition of a "Rock Star" developer is that they have a history of producing hits. It's not relative.

I have a history of producing software that gets the job done; sells pretty well; people like using; is very stable without too many bugs; and so forth.

I however would definitely NOT consider myself a "Rock Star" developer by any stretch of the imagination. I'm self taught and have glaring holes in my knowledge in quite a few areas. I often look at code from others and go "ah, that's a better way than I would've used" (and then try to use similar things in my own code in the future). For example, after a good 5 years of coding all day every day as my day job, I finally figured out the "right" time to use interfaces vs other methods. My code before that should've used interfaces worked (and worked well) but would be much more maintainable had I really known about their correct usage before. And vice-versa, I came across some REALLY old code of mine that uses interfaces when it makes absolutely no sense to do so (I assume it was when I first heard what about they are)

What makes me not a CRAP developer is that I know I have these holes in my knowledge and am willing to learn from others. That hardly makes a rock-star though, regardless of how much good stuff I've produced to date.

Re:Troll Article? (2)

JWW (79176) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188361)

You are so right a humble rock star developer is worth their weight in gold (or at least silver). Also humble rock star developers can be some of the best mentors to junior programmers because the don't maintain any off putting alloofness.

Humble rock star developers aren't fairy tales either, they do exist. Having them on your development team is a fantastic benefit.

Re:Troll Article? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187909)

Yup, sounds to me, that like in every other industry, managers blame the underlings for their own lack of skill.

Their problem though, is that unlike other industries, GOOD, decent or even half-decent developers are rare, so they can't fire them or make them quit and then just find someone who swallows all their crap. That's why they call good programming a talent.

My advice to company owners, you make a development team. Not the horse and driver kind, so, for every rockstar developer, make sure you have a rockstar manager.

Re:Troll Article? (4, Insightful)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187911)

Best to have a couple of elite guys to motivate each other, a bit of camaraderie and some healthy competition. A single fulcrum may get stressed, lonely or complacent. I like having someone that I must work hard to prove I am better than.

Troll Indeed (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187933)

...No, you don't need 10, idiot,....

That's the attitude and one of the things that made my time as a developer miserable. It wasn't enough that I was under constant pressure to meet unrealistic dealines and spending all my free time keeping up with new tech, I had to put up with that kind of abuse and the constant intellect pissing contests and penis measuring.

The other was the fact that you couldn't say "I don't know. Let me research it." Any sign of ignorance or weakness would get you fired or the very least treated like a moron by one's colleagues.

Last year, I saw the National Geogrphic show on Stress. To make a long story short, the guy who was researching monkeys made some observations about them that reminded me of working in software development.

Re:Troll Indeed (4, Insightful)

pairo (519657) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188037)

Sounds like your employer/colleagues were pieces of shit. Doesn't necessarily mean that's the norm, or that you can't find better. But, keep on fighting the good fight, sir!

Re:Troll Indeed (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188049)

You need to work in IT in the porn industry. Everyone gets tired of the penis measuring very quickly.

Re:Troll Article? (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187951)

Exactly.

If your "rock star" developers are over-engineering the problem, writing bad code or whatever, then they weren't "rock star" developers, but a bunch of ill experienced or underqualified amateurs that's kind of the fucking point.

The article will be better labelled as "If your rock star developers aren't, then they'll produce just as shit a product as developers who don't even pretend to be capable of doing the given task".

Who is the author, and what has he done? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187777)

In my experience, anyone tossing off terminology like "rock star developer" is some kind of a poseur.

Re:Who is the author, and what has he done? (1)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187941)

I do not think the Author is a complete poseur, so asking him to leave the hall would not be 100% correct solution. He seemed to have some project management experience. However there is a problem with him that I cannot put my finger on (or an appropriate place). No programmer in his right (or left one for that matter) mind can believe that a "programming test" during an interview would provide any meaningful indicator about a coder's abilities. Maybe you can ask the difference between SET versus SELECT and INSERT, but the answer would show the philosophical position of candidate at best. He can say that SET is a three letter command and others are six letter (thus inefficient :) ) commands, that there is a need for a four letter command in between.... He would be right. He can talk about the differences between utilization of read and write pipes amongst those commands and he would be right again. If I were to answer I would talk about offloading some CPU tasks from application server to database server and I would be right too. However a programming test, to see if a programmer can code, especially if you are looking for a possible "cowboy" (which is more suitable to the case than "rock star" I assume) is absurd. It is like claiming that there are already people in staff who can evaluate the code from such people... It would be more likely a case of "You are not expected to understand this", if candidate is really a good programmer. My Assembly instructor used to tell us that "no good programmer can understand their code after a year"...

Re:Who is the author, and what has he done? (2)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188401)

No programmer in his right (or left one for that matter) mind can believe that a "programming test" during an interview would provide any meaningful indicator about a coder's abilities.

Actually, I think you are dead wrong here.

I have been through a few programming tests and have now created a few as well and I think they can be a very good indicator if they are approached correctly (by the company, not the prospective employee).

Firstly, there are no hard and fast wrong answers. I made a few glaring screw ups in mine but since I was able to recognise them myself and discuss them during the post test interview this did not count against me.

We were asked to fill in some blanks in a some code (very big blanks though, more than a few lines long). This pretty much guaranteed some mistakes since we had to do it on paper with no access to a computer or any reference material. We also go to choose a language were comfortable with to do the test in (PHP or ASP since it was a web dev role). All in all I think the test took about half an hour, then a further half hour to discuss it.

The main thing is that you do not expect the test to be marked and that be the be all and end all. Instead it is used as a starting point for an interview. Then the interview can be far more useful than if you just go in with a list of stock questions that the candidate will have rehearsed for anyway.

It's an art (3, Informative)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187783)

it's the lack of a single, piercing intellect who is given the power to do their best. You need SINGLE intelligence to coordinate complex maneuvers, and many minds to search out the plain of solutions like hunters of old. Coding is actually quite holistic, occurring in natural stages. Maybe the problem isn't that there too many or too few people; a good software team should be inspirational, allowing the members to spend time for excellence, even if its not obvious (to you, the hiring boss).

No surprise efficiency is an issue in some places; if one builds a "well oiled" machines for it's consistency of action, trouble us not about these tiny changes (in all honesty) that leave managers hoping humans can be better machines. The art you are looking for, and the people, aren't found where that idea lives.

Re:It's an art (1)

gallondr00nk (868673) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188245)

You need SINGLE intelligence to coordinate complex maneuvers, and many minds to search out the plain of solutions like hunters of old.

It sounds like they desperately need to employ Borg as developers.

Unmanageable (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187785)

"Rock stars" - we called them divas in my company - are notoriously unmanageable: many of them are temperamental, don't work well with others, tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told, and have an overinflated sense of ego. It's a high price to pay to exploit their expertise.

At any rate, one diva per project, provided a good supervisor is found to manage them and the project is in early development, is okay and probably does bring added value. A team of them however is sure to bring chaos, as individual personalities will inevitably clash. And forget about getting these guys to work on products that are in the middle of their product lives.

Re:Unmanageable (3)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187823)

truly, it's as if we should choose people to work together who actually have a lttlle in common. In many contracts i held, we didn't even read each others resumes. How can you build a bridge of understanding with a person who "just wants to work" and defines that as having no spark or interest greater than what's for lunch? (or, what's for project - same thing) Talking, and sharing mistakes freely - coming to know each other so as to render help and criticism without fear of reprisal IS work. That's what "professional engagement" means - one are engaged! I consider myself an eccentric coder (oh i do so qualify), but my major gripe wasn''t some big lack of skill - it was lack of professionalism. If people expect treating each other like strangers on the subway will make a better workplace, and if the company only promotes lax, lazy, quiet, and completely unstimulating environment - well, i can understand the divas better then the people that fail to *care*.

Re:Unmanageable (3, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187845)

"Rock stars" - we called them divas in my company - are notoriously unmanageable: many of them are temperamental, don't work well with others, tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told, and have an overinflated sense of ego. It's a high price to pay to exploit their expertise.

except of course when they do when they're told, and shit hits the fan because they were correct to begin with, and then they're blamed for the failure and canned. Who's the diva then? Your phrase 'doesn't work well with others' tells me all I need to know about the culture where you work. Process and consensus matter more than facts and the truth of a matter. This is a very poor environment for logical thinking of any kind, nevermind computer programming.

What are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188293)

You've got it quite backward. In most cases, it's the "divas" and "rockstars" who forcefully suggest the use of certain technologies solely because they're "trendy", rather than out of any technical merit.

So the software product ends up getting built as a web app using Ruby on Rails, NoSQL, and JavaScript. Then it goes live, and it's a complete disaster. The Ruby on Rails code ends up being horribly slow, with all sorts of performance problems. Furthermore, the code is damn near unmaintainable, since the "rockstars" insisted on using techniques like monkey patching. Of course, the NoSQL database is a pain in the ass to query, and the data quickly becomes corrupt thanks to a complete lack of referential integrity and other constraints. Sometimes it just loses data completely. Then there's the front-end JavaScript code. Besides being slow, it also only works correctly on some browsers. The users hate the new web-based UI, because it's less productive than the native apps they were using before.

When a software project with no code goes bad, it's usually because of "architects". When a software project with code goes bad, it's usually because of "rockstars" or "divas".

Re:Unmanageable (4, Funny)

ccguy (1116865) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187887)

"Rock stars" - we called them divas in my company - are notoriously unmanageable: many of them are temperamental, don't work well with others, tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told,

No disrespect, but we developers also have a name for people that describe developers the way you do :-)

Re:Unmanageable (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188095)

"Rock stars" - we called them divas in my company - are notoriously unmanageable: many of them are temperamental, don't work well with others, tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told,

No disrespect, but we developers also have a name for people that describe developers the way you do :-)

No disrespect, but is this "we" that you are referring to? The fact is that there are divas in the software industry, and they are not necessarily among the best developers (even though they thing they are.) Once we get a diva in the team, it's just utter chaos. They are simply impossible to manage. They can bang code like no tomorrow alright. And they might be able to describe the state of a TCP session by heart. But that doesn't necessarily make them good developers. That's just savantism.

As Dijkstra once put it, good developers are humble, or at least are capable of acknowledging what they don't know. A diva, OTH, is always right, in his mind that is, he is abrasive and nearly impossible to manage effectively.

So when management (and other developers) calls them divas, they are usually right. True that there are systemic problems with management in some places. But not all management shops are created equal, and it does not negate the fact that the software industry is infected by divas (and code monkeys.)

Also, the whole "rock start" term is so stupid and unprofessional. If you are looking for rock starts, you will most likely get pretentious walking turds. Don't look for rock starts, look for competent, professional developers. These are not the same, and the nuisance is missed to most apparently.

Re:Unmanageable (4, Insightful)

locofungus (179280) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188217)

A diva, OTH, is always right, in his mind that is, he is abrasive and nearly impossible to manage effectively.

While this is probably true for some people, especially above average people who have only worked at small companies where they are the best developer with no real competition I think there's a second problem that can make good people appear like that:

Sometimes we are asked to do something that is impossible. Not hard, not boring, not beyond our capabilities, but impossible.

Mediocre developers will go off to start things when they are asked. Months later they'll hit the corner cases that make the project impossible to do and then will be completely flummoxed at which point one of the top developers will be called in to try to rescue the project.

Where the top developers can be particularly weak is in trying to explain why a project "just won't work." It's surprisingly difficult to do in any moderately complex system. Often any single example that won't work has a simple solution. It's only when you consider many of the difficult cases together that you understand that the solutions are mutually inconsistent.

One of the key things of the top people isn't just that they're good but that they don't (often) start along roads that won't work. Get two or three of them together, give them time to thrash out ideas (and them leaving work early on Friday to go for a pint might actually save your company hundreds of thousands in developer time when they realize there's a problem ahead) and you really can see a ten fold performance improvement in productivity. Not because more code is written but less is written and then thrown away.

Maybe we're saying the same thing. But I have seen few true divas while you imply they're common. Many able programmers are not perhaps as socially functional as managers might prefer but that is, unfortunately, going to be a consequence of hiring people who are doing a job that needs excessive amounts of pedantry to get right.

Tim.

Re:Unmanageable (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188135)

"Rock stars" - we called them divas in my company - are notoriously unmanageable: many of them are temperamental, don't work well with others, tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told,

No disrespect, but we developers also have a name for people that describe developers the way you do :-)

Let me guess: "Sir".

Re:Unmanageable (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187997)

I think you've probably just been fleeced.

""Rock stars" - we called them divas in my company - are notoriously unmanageable: many of them are temperamental, don't work well with others"

To me this means they weren't rock star developers. Being a great developers means being excellent not just at writing fancy algorithms, but being able to architect great code, being able to communicate with the project stakeholders to find out what they really want, being able to organise and train other coders to improve their level of competence. If your "rock star" developers were problematic, then I'd argue what you actually had were a bunch of people who managed to sell themselves as being more competent than they were - they told you they were "rock star" developers and you believed them, but in reality they weren't.

"tend to do what they "know" is right instead of doing what they're told"

I take issue with this. Surely the whole point in hiring the best of the best is that they know from experience what the fuck they are doing. If you don't listen to them then you are hence the problem, why hire them if you're just not going to listen to them and do things your way anyway? If you know better then you don't need them in the first place. If you do need them, then fucking listen to them.

Really, it's not difficult. The ones who really do deserve the "rock star" developer title are the ones whom you'd never have any of the problems you listed with (bar the one in the last paragraph which I believe is a flaw with your management rather than them). If you're having those problems then you've hired a salesman. A salesman who is a pro at selling himself at an overinflated price, but not really the person you were actually looking for.

Having an ego runs completely counter to being a great developer or engineer, because if you have an ego you're not capable of introspection, you're not capable of noticing your flaws, your weak areas, and improving them. If your devs have an ego then they're never going to be as good as the ones who quietly and happily just self improve. Take John Romero and John Carmack, one of these has a massive fucking ego, an ego so big it can fill a football stadium, the other has a long history of writing pretty impressive cutting edge code without ever displaying an ounce of ego. The latter has had an impressive career developing cutting edge tech, the former, when he went it alone became probably the biggest flop in the industry and his studio was only saved by a bunch of other previously nameless devs who worked on a separate project away from him.

Egos are a trait of wannabes, real superstars just get the fuck on and do what they do.

Re:Unmanageable (2)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188153)

Having an ego runs completely counter to being a great developer or engineer, because if you have an ego you're not capable of introspection, you're not capable of noticing your flaws, your weak areas, and improving them. If your devs have an ego then they're never going to be as good as the ones who quietly and happily just self improve. Take John Romero and John Carmack, one of these has a massive fucking ego, an ego so big it can fill a football stadium, the other has a long history of writing pretty impressive cutting edge code without ever displaying an ounce of ego. The latter has had an impressive career developing cutting edge tech, the former, when he went it alone became probably the biggest flop in the industry and his studio was only saved by a bunch of other previously nameless devs who worked on a separate project away from him. Egos are a trait of wannabes, real superstars just get the fuck on and do what they do.

I dont think the parent is talking about the same kind of "ego" as you. Unfortunately, it is not only the arrogant jerks that are seen as having an "overinflated sense of ego," even the most humble developer can have that accusation thrown at him or her in the wrong environment. You may be very good at something, you may also be aware of it and that most of your peers aren't as good at it. That's all it takes to have an overinflated ego because people will sense that you know it and will feel inferior. Doesn't matter if you are as friendly and humble as can be. And that is why people like us want to work at Google.

Re:Unmanageable (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188127)

"Rock stars" - we called them divas in my company - are notoriously unmanageable: many of them are temperamental, don't work well with others,

If rock stars programmers work with genuine peers, the diva part of them will be suppressed. It is hard to feel superior when working with people against whom you are just average. Some of them can still lack in social skills(*), but you can often minimize the damages that could cause. Of course as a company you still need to be able to afford top talent and have a project that challenges or otherwise interest them.

Examples I know where it works:
WebKit, it has top talent from multiple companies that has to work together and also compete against each other as companies.
Qt, a project that needs the best developers to make a product that will impress and please other developers.

(*) In my experience lack of social skills disappears towards the high end of most skill scales. Really smart people often also learn how to interact with other people, even if they are different. Of course well-balanced top-talent costs extra and needs to be head-hunted as they tend to not get fired.

"rockstar developer" (4, Insightful)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187787)

No-one who identifies himself as a rockstar developer is a rockstar developer, and no good developer would call himself a rockstar. The only thing certain is that in any article about "rockstar developers", a few dozen people will wander in and complain that the only reason the world isn't perfect is because rockstars like them just aren't looked after well enough.

So, for all of you thinking about making this claim: if you're so fucking great, go out and start your own business and rewrite every single software product in your own image. Be the rockstar you think you are, identify everyone's desires, and out-compete every other firm on the planet. Internet capitalism is more meritocratic than most forms of capitalism - if you write a killer operating system or office suite or CRM system or time&billing app or whatever, people will take notice. So team up with as many people as your ego will allow (you're a rockstar so you already have considerable savings) and go get 'em, tiger!

Re:"rockstar developer" (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187831)

No-one who identifies himself as a rockstar developer is a rockstar developer, and no good developer would call himself a rockstar.

I agree 100%. I've had the good fortune to work with some extremely talented developers in my career, and the best of them tend to be very humble about their skills (mostly because they tend to seek out the company of other engineers who are as good as they are.) "Rockstar" is a bullshit term used by dotcom promoters and headhunters.

-jcr

Re:"rockstar developer" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188275)

don't forget ninjas

Re:"rockstar developer" (2)

Migala77 (1179151) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187857)

No-one who identifies himself as a rockstar developer is a rockstar developer, and no good developer would call himself a rockstar.

You are not a rockstar (developer or otherwise) unless you have the groupies to prove it.

Re:"rockstar developer" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188189)

No-one who identifies himself as a rockstar developer is a rockstar developer, and no good developer would call himself a rockstar.

"Them whats knows, knows no need to brag. Them whats doesn't, does."

Technologists vs Developers (1)

PCK (4192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187795)

One big problem is that many of these so called "Rockstars" are too interested in the technology rather than getting the job done. Technology to them is like fashion, you have to use the latest simply for bragging rights and ego when a proven more mature solution would be the correct descision to take.

This video is funny but makes a simpliar point, the irony being he's promoting mysql as the solution when mysql itself was in itself once an object of ridicule by peoeple who knew what they where doing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2F-DItXtZs

Re:Technologists vs Developers (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188407)

One big problem is that many of these so called "Rockstars" are too interested in the technology rather than getting the job done. Technology to them is like fashion, you have to use the latest simply for bragging rights and ego when a proven more mature solution would be the correct descision to take.

Those would be posers, the real "rockstars" are those who just get the job done and are interested in the next product more than the one they just finished.

Based on what definition of truth? (1)

martin_dk (1368035) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187805)

The title should read My 6 opinions on senior developers

Sound far-fetched?

Yes.

Nahhh (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187807)

10 rock stars are as difficult to manage as 10 idiots, every lead knows that the good development team is a balanced one , 2 idiots , 2 experts , and 6 normal guys, never involve an even number of women!! never!!

I wanna be a Rockstar (1)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187815)

'Cause we all just wanna be big rockstars
And live in hilltop houses, drivin' fifteen cars
The girls come easy and the drugs come cheap
We'll all stay skinny 'cause we just won't eat

And we'll hang out in the coolest bars
In the VIP with the movie stars
Every good gold digger's gonna wind up there
Every Playboy bunny with her bleach blond hair

And well, hey, hey, I wanna be a Rockstar
Hey, hey, I wanna be a Rockstar!

Re:I wanna be a Rockstar (2)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188079)

Incoming lawsuit for distributing the lyrics in 3...2...1...

by rockstar developers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187829)

i assume they mean guys from with Phds from Stanford and MIT? Sorry but it just sounds like all the self-taught C# losers are just jealous.

Dunno... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187853)

Just finished a project. Involved were myself and another senior guy - we are both near our 40s (no, it wasn't cobol, it was in fact HTML5) - whom I consider in the rock star group. There was also a junior involved.

Well, I loved working every minute with the senior rock star. The process had a great flow. Reading each other's mind and just fucking go for it, develop and ship it.
Junior was unreliable, didn't add any insight to the team - just barely contributed the minimal and quite trivial things (due to the time pressure we couln't have done it without him, so still he did contribute some value).

But really, I'd work with non-soloing rock star any day. I can not work with somebody who can't follow my tempo.
And it's the same weather I'm in developer or manager role.

Re:Dunno... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188101)

You do need the junior to be willing to learn and enthusiastic, so that the next time they can contribute more and more.

In my experience it is the just-above-juniors who want to bring the latest technologies and methodologies into a project.

And it is the rockstars / senior developers who don't want to learn those new fangled things, not when they could reinvent the wheel. A senior Java developer, for example, may have come from a company on an old codebase that doesn't use things that a younger developer takes for granted. They can make JDBC sing but Hibernate will make them scream in frustration.

You need a good manager of the team to make decisions that the team will respect.

And your interviews need to discover not only raw programming ability and intelligence, but whether they know the methodologies that your team uses. You can get experienced software developers that haven't used DI (Spring, Guice, etc), Mocking (JMock, EasyMock, etc), Hibernate, so they might not be an ideal fit for your team even if they're good overall - unless you can spare the time to let them get up to speed on these technologies (and they will be quicker than a junior who doesn't know them). Make your job adverts/requirements specific on required technologies - don't take them for granted.

And senior developers like to work on new projects, not maintainence and enhancements to older projects.

Rockstarism is a function of time-place-project (1)

Desibert (672322) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187861)

Not all developers can be rock stars all the time. Developer-rockstarism requires a fair bit of ground work ... it's a supersaturated state ...bit of a shake and it's gone! For projects & companies to succeed you need a good balance between the rock stars & others [ well trained, well read, high IQ, high tenacity, high experience, high business, high spirit etc. ] ... If a company lets you pace your self in between these two then you know u are working for a geek-friendly outfit. That's priceless!

Senior Rock Stars? (1)

Pikewake (217555) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187875)

I thought the whole point of hiring a senior developer is that he doesn't behave like a rock star, even if some of them do look like Keith Richards...

ucenje francuskog jezika u francuskoj (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187877)

Ucenje francuskog jezika u parizu i nici za decu i odrasle. www.emanera.rs

SHIT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187897)

Senior Developers != Rockstar Developers (4, Insightful)

HizookRobotics (1722346) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187907)

Description starts by talking about rockstar developers, then makes assertions about senior developers. These two groups are not even close to equivalent. Seniority (generally) implies experience -- not "rockstar" status.

Desperate justification for hiring cheap people? (5, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187935)

This sounds like a desperate justification for doing it on the cheap. And the "truths" are badly flawed. First, the term "rockstar" is already pretty bad and way off. A very senior engineer is not a "rockstar". Rockstars are people that crave attention and can generate it.

As to the items:
1. Wrong. If you hire highly competent and professional people, the savings in time, maintenance, etc. will be far higher then the higher salary you have to pay them.
2. Wrong. People in the described situation have trouble seeing the big picture, and will get details wrong as well. Their code will basically barely good enough if you are lucky, but it will be a nightmare of maintenance, architecture and design issues.
3. Wrong. This is confusing "rockstars" with very senior engineers. Very senior (by experience and capability, not age) engineers will know this pitfall (hint: Brooks calls it the "second system effect", a really senior coder will know about that) and will know how to avoid it.
4. Well, yes. But what is the point? If the hiring process is run incompetently, of course you will get bad people. That is in no way the fault of the good people that are out there as well. Seems to me the author needed an excuse to bring it up to 6.
5. Wrong. This is a typical problem of people that may think they are senior when in fact they are not. Also see 3 and 4.
6. And here the truth is revealed. This person does not want senior individuals that actually know what they are doing and may criticize as stupid plan. In fact this person wants no individuals on the team, so everybody can be replaced easily and knows it. Yes-men preferred. Unfortunately that is a sure recipe for disaster.

Bottom line: All there "truths" are wrong or irrelevant and show the real problem: The author of this article has no clue and is a "rockstar" himself. But not one of those that can actually do things right. Just one of those small people that cannot handle others being better at something than he is.
 

Re:Desperate justification for hiring cheap people (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188205)

I never have mod points when I need them ... Well said.

MBA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41187939)

Another lame MBA trying to make excuses for hiring substandard workers. "See I told you so! We should have hired H1Bs instead! I put a few assholes who were full of themselves and they didn't get anything done!" The fact is there are tens of thousands of qualified American candidates for programming and other IT jobs. Do they get hired? No, even though they will work for the same wage nowadays in this lack luster Oconomy. It's because businesses want to be able to pay shit wages AND take the tax deductions for hiring H1Bs. That's why I left the IT industry. A bunch of MBA assholes running the show that don't have a clue about what they are doing to their companies or the country, where they are going, or who they are hiring. It's funny how most MBA's degrees don't mean shit, ooooh ooooh tell me how you took macroeconomics again, and how that makes you better than everyone else.

Now I use my programming skills in another industry, make a ton more money, and don't have to put up with corporate asshole MBAs.

Re:MBA (2)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188021)

"Now I use my programming skills in another industry"

TBH most developers I know work in the IT dept of a non IT related industry. The amount of devs who work in pure IT is actually quite small.

If your project is going *that* badly (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#41187973)

Lay back, shut up, and let Angus pound you back into shape <screeching guitar riff>

I've been in this game a looong time... (5, Interesting)

CaptainOfSpray (1229754) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188003)

and every really hotshot piece of software I have ever encountered (and I'm talking world-wide success here) has been written by a very small team of highly-motivated developers working very long hours at very odd times of day with no management interference at all. They weren't rock stars before the project or they would have been managed into oblivion. After they had completed the product and it became successful, then they were rock stars. The self-motivation usually came from "fuck you, manager, I'm going to prove that my ideas are correct" One of these projects, where I knew the people well, became one of IBM's top 5 most profitable products world-wide (you've never heard of it), and those guys broke every rule in the book. They worked nights, never went to meetings, smoked cigars at their desks, suppressed all records of how many hours they were really working. By working those hours, the two of them held the entire structure of a big application, its database, and all its interactions with the operating system in their heads, and that mental state enabled them to write vast quantities of simple clear code that contained no serious errors on shipment, and none revealed in the first year. Later people added on to the project for subsequent releases never found any serious errors in the backbone written by the first two guys, nor did they have any problems adding to the code.

Code written during the normal working day, with constant interruptions, will never soar like that.

Re:I've been in this game a looong time... (3, Insightful)

pnot (96038) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188411)

Code written during the normal working day, with constant interruptions, will never soar like that.

About half an hour before reading your post, I suddenly realized that Monday is Labor Day. My first thought was "fuck yeah, no office-mate, no visitors, finally I'll get some real work done".

Re:I've been in this game a looong time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188453)

anybody got an idea as to what the IBM product was? Makes me want to look under the hood of it.

The article is frankly stupid. (5, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188005)

If you have 40 people writing spaghetti code, then you need _one_ good developer and code reviews, and reject bad code until they learn. Many bad developers are bad because they haven't learned how to do it better. Those that can't learn - sorry, but their productivity is negative, so let them go. What you don't need is a dozen "rock stars". You need developers who can lead by example and let them do it, and who can solve difficult problems that turn up, and you need more people who are reliable, not necessarily bright, who can do all the boring bits - of which there are usually lots.

What I can't understand is how the author talks about smart people making smart designs that don't work. If the design doesn't work, it wasn't smart in the first place. If someone creates a design that isn't smart in the first place, that person wasn't smart. So this seems to be about people who can bamboozle others into thinking they are smart, creating designs that nobody understands.

Re:The article is frankly stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188159)

I think the main thing the article is trying to point out is that higher a team of just experienced devs is silly because they will get bored doing any kind of dogs body style coding and it's cheaper to get a couple of experienced guys and then a bunch of cheaper less able experienced people and the effects will be roughly the same.

If the managers are crap not even programming gods (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188069)

The characteristic of failed software projects is poor management,

Until organizations realize that, they are doomed to fail, again and again.

Yeah, with good project management, even moderately competant coders can produce good results - the problems reported here are entirely due to poor managers, not poor programmers.

The stars can produce excellent results, but not if the management is doing it's best to derail the project at every turn.

Look at the games industries greatest failures :)

focus (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188091)

The problem with "Rock Star" developers is, that they might lose focus when the job they're doing is too simple for them. They may like to code on your internet-enabled office-style application for a while, but in the end they long for more interesting, worthwhile and complicated matters that are on the edge of scientific discovery.

So eventually you'll lose them, and you're stuck with the code that they left.

Quite a bit of truth to the article (2)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188117)

There's quite a bit of truth to the article allthough I'd say that true rockstar programmers do use the right tool for the job. If a programmer builds a custom Java CMS where Joomla would do, he isn't a rockstar. He's an idiot.

Then again, the best programmer in the world is worth nothing without the environment or the right people around him. That includes higher ups that keep people off his back, maintainers that can handle the pipeline and clear objectives to work against.

If a rockstar doesn't have those, he'll be faster than others in producing workable stuff, but if he gets hit by a bus it will be just as much worth as the other unfinished stuff.

Many programmers I know hat are considered rockstars are quite mediocre. They only were at the right place at the righ time and didn't have any scruples in building a complex key product only they could understand, without docs, concept comments or usecases, as a means of job security.

My last teamlead was a nice guy and a demigod in Perl, but absolutely incapable of any sort of productive or result oriented teamwork-organisation or inter-team communication. In itself not very rockstarish, allthough people did think of him that way when he saved the day on some billing system or something every once in a while.

Bottom line:
Rockstar is always relative. Very relative.

Not just true of programmers, and new team really (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188121)

Existing teams where everyone has know each other and worked together for a long time have their own functional relationships, but for new teams you kinda need a hierarchy.

I don't think this matters if its a team of developers putting together an inside sales support system or a team of carpenters putting up a barn. You simply can't have a team of all equals because if you do everything becomes a debate and no actual work gets done. Or even worse everyone needs to shine and get some recognition outside the team and so is pushing for their 'plan' so they can be the hero.

You have to have some social order. Teams are happiest when the guys at the top are their tacitly because of their widely acknowledged talent, and or successful experience. It really helps if those guys are also personable but is not always a requirement. Nobody wants feel someone has arbitrarily stifled their career so that Bob can be tech lead. OOTH some competent but not so senior developers might love working with RockStar Bob on a project. They would feel its an opportunity to learn how Bob does does it, technically or socially, so they can use that knowledge going forward for their own gain.

In the mean time you'd hope Bob is happy that he has some people he can farm out tasks to and after pointing in a general direction, perhaps even taking some feedback, can just leave them to it without having to hold their hand the whole time or worry he is going to get 10KLOC of useless spaghetti as a 'deliverable'.

The real issue... (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188123)

... is not rockstar developers it's that making and understanding how software will perform and it's impacts is a hard problem. It's not like engineering where the laws of nature are relatively fixed and known and is a matter of trade offs (time vs cost), ANY change to a program has potential impacts and ripple effects on all other subsystems effectively changing program behavior to some extent. The real issue is the tools for software development and making these things understandable in complex systems is a hard problem. It's a matter of framing problems and solutions in ways that you can actually understand their impacts. Too much software development is undefined and uncharted because of the nature of coding itself. There is a lot of research going on in visualization trying to make these ethereal systems of code easy to grasp and understand in ways that are much easier and more natural for our senses as human beings.

http://www.allosphere.ucsb.edu/ [ucsb.edu]

It's a matter of being able to grasp what is that you are trying to do and it's impact. Most developers (even rockstars) have issues with not even knowing where they are headed and what will be needed down the line as projects grow and outstrip human ability to understand them. Software has long since passed the complexity where the human mind has the ability to full grasp all the complex interactions. The real problem now is getting the research and data to make demystify this complexity (i.e. complexity partially being a synonym for not being able to see/understand what a problem and solutions are and it's impacts).

Todd Rundgren (1)

danboid (300692) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188131)

If I think 'Rockstar devs' Todd is the first person who comes to mind. Todd designed the first commercial graphics tablet and had it released by Apple, was an early (and flagship) user of the Video Toaster and released arguably the first interactive album which he helped code for Phillips CDi.

Do we have any other notable examples of people successful as both devs and rock stars? There have to be more than just Todd.

Re:Todd Rundgren (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188207)

Tom Scholz [wikipedia.org] of Boston.

To hell with "rock star" developers.... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188173)

How about hiring COMPETENT developers to begin with? the companies that have those problems have the fault lie with the management. managers that cant actually manage, pay scale for the actual developers is too low, budget for the department or project is too low, and the upper management focus is not on quality, but on profitability.

Yeah, let's lay blame on the guys that are actually doing the work. In reality, every failed project has the person managing it to firmly blame for it's failure.

Notch is what I'd call a rockstar developer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188215)

A slgihtly different definition to the one in the article but the only rockstar developer I can think of off the top of my head is Notch - I don't know when it happened but suddenly everyone knew who he was and he has legions of fans all over the internet. That seems to have died down a bit now but it amused and pleased me to see a developer elevated to the level of rockstars.

Wonder if he got groupies?

This is old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188227)

We've known about this issue ever since we started to write complex code. The classic reference is 'The Mythical Man-Month' [wikipedia.org] .

The case can be made that one or two really good programmers will do a better job than a team. That seems to contradict TFA.

A truly terrible manager... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188257)

A truly terrible manager will ruin a project, even if you give him/her the best people.

Rock Stars make great performances... (2)

Martin S. (98249) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188281)

Rock Stars make great performances not great software.

Ego has little place in software development and in most cases those that consider themselves 'Rock Star Programmers' are suffering from a chronic case of Dunning Kruger syndrome

Great Programmers are masters at listening and comprehension. They are humble, asking questions before offering solutions. They not only accept criticism they solicit it. Their code is simple and elegant, capable of being comprehended by the most junior and appreciated by experts.

$100,000? Really? (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188337)

That's a ho hum salary for programmers with experience. That's less than $50/hour. Ten years ago, I knew Unix people in the financial area ( NYC ) making 50% more than that.

It isn't just the money that makes a programmer work harder. A good working environment ( not the physical ) gets people to be more productive. Things like flex time, tele-commuting and accessible day-care goes a long way towards fostering an effective work force. Trust and respect goes a long way.

Oh, well, not going to happen with all the psychotic managers running the place.

IBM knew this back in the 1970s. Called CPT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188341)

CPT (Chief Programmer Team) had one chief programmer (your "rock star") that could carry out design, but was not necessarily the team leader. The chief programmer would guide other programmers in the task of programming, but the project leader would make sure schedules were kept. Frequently the chief programmer would also be the project leader, but it wasn't a fixed rule.

Bad article (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188345)

Well, most tuthes in the article are perceptions of the auther. Not truthes.

The whole article is rather mood anyway. I so far never was in a project where the development team needed managing/management.

The project might need management ... defining what is in scope, what is out of scope and what is done in what timeframe, basically talking to external stakesholders.

But a team? What do you want to manage in a team? Let them define their work alone ... if you have 10 senior developers that should be no issue, if youo have a team with only one it might be difficult. Best teams imho are 50/50.

The op is projecting (1)

frist (1441971) | more than 2 years ago | (#41188351)

He is projecting his own incompetence and poor work ethic onto all senior developers.

Rock Star MBAs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41188375)

Meanwhile rock star MBAs run rampant collecting bonuses by forcing 2 developers to do the job of 10 while working on an ever tightening schedule. To hell with quality of product, it has to ship by yesterday otherwise the investors won't give the C*O his bonus for the quarter. If the company sinks the rock star MBAs just float their parachutes to the next company and rehire everyone at even lower salary.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?