Have you ever gotten that classic job interview question, "where do you see yourself in five years?" When asked, I'm always mentally transported back to a certain Twisted Sister video from 1984.
I want you to tell me – no, better yet, stand up and tell the class –what do you wanna do with your life?
You want to rock, naturally! Or at least be a rockstar programmer. It's not a question that typically gets a serious answer – sort of like that other old groan-inducing interview chestnut, "what's your greatest weakness?" It's that you sometimes rock too hard, right? Innocent bystanders could get hurt.
But I think this is a different and more serious class of question, one that deserves real consideration. Not for the interviewer's benefit, but for your own benefit.
The "where do you see yourself in five years" question is sort of glib, and most people have a pat answer they give to interviewers. But it does raise some deeper concerns: what is the potential career path for a software developer? Sure, we do this stuff because we love it, and we're very fortunate in that regard. But will you be sitting in front of your computer programming when you're 50? When you're 60? What is the best possible career outcome for a programmer who aspires to be.. well, a programmer?
What if I told you, with tongue firmly planted in cheek, that there were Eight Levels of Programmers?
This is the highest level. Your code has survived and transcended your death. You are a part of the permanent historical record of computing. Other programmers study your work and writing. You may have won a Turing Award, or written influential papers, or invented one or more pieces of fundamental technology that have affected the course of programming as we know it. You don't just have a wikipedia entry – there are entire websites dedicated to studying your life and work.
Very few programmers ever achieve this level in their own lifetimes.
Programmers who are both well known and have created entire businesses – perhaps even whole industries – around their code. These programmers have given themselves the real freedom zero: the freedom to decide for themselves what they want to work on. And to share that freedom with their fellow programmers.
This is the level to which most programmers should aspire. Getting to this level often depends more on business skills than programming.
This is also a good place to be, but not unless you also have a day job.
You're famous in programming circles. But being famous doesn't necessarily mean you can turn a profit and support yourself. Famous is good, but successful is better. You probably work for a large, well known technology company, an influential small company, or you're a part of a modest startup team. Either way, other programmers have heard of you, and you're having a positive impact on the field.
You have a successful career as a software developer. Your skills are always in demand and you never have to look very long or hard to find a great job. Your peers respect you. Every company you work with is improved and enriched in some way by your presence.
But where do you go from there?
At this level you are a good enough programmer to realize that you're not a great programmer. And you might never be.
Talent often has little do do with success. You can be very successful if you have business and people skills. If you are an average programmer but manage to make a living at it then you are talented, just not necessarily at coding.
Don't knock the value of self-awareness. It's more rare than you realize. There's nothing wrong with lacking talent. Be bold. Figure out what you're good at, and pursue it. Aggressively.
An amateur programmer loves to code, and it shows: they might be a promising student or intern, or perhaps they're contributing to open source projects, or building interesting "just for fun" applications or websites in their spare time. Their code and ideas show promise and enthusiasm.
Being an amateur is a good thing; from this level one can rapidly rise to become a working programmer.
The proverbial typical programmer. Joe Coder. Competent (usually) but unremarkable. Probably works for a large, anonymous MegaCorp. It's just a job, not their entire life. Nothing wrong with that, either.
People who somehow fell into the programmer role without an iota of skill or ability. Everything they touch turns into pain and suffering for their fellow programmers – with the possible exception of other Bad Programmers, who lack even the rudimentary skill required to tell that they're working with another Bad Programmer.
Which is, perhaps, the hallmark of all Bad Programmers. These people have no business writing code of any kind – but they do, anyway.
These levels aren't entirely serious. Not every programmer aspires to the same things in their career. But it's illuminating to consider what a programmer could accomplish in ten years, twenty years, or thirty years – perhaps even a lifetime. Which notable programmers do you admire the most? What did they accomplish to earn your admiration?
In short, what do you wanna do with your life?
There are only 2 levels of programmers:
The ones that open their code, and the ones that close it. In other words, the ones that give a shit and the ones that don't. Success has nothing to do with money or fame.
You can go to the grave and take all your shit whit you, or you can pass it on. Who knows, maybe in 10 years someone comes up with a brilliant idea that converts shit into food, and thanks to your shit, hunger becomes history.
2 levels only. Successful, famous, working and average programmers mean shit to the people that have cancer or are starving to death.
Chala on April 3, 2009 12:32 PMBut will you be sitting in front of your computer programming when you're 50? October, so yes.
When you're 60? If I don't manage to get what I've heard called an FY fund together in the next 10 years, probably.
When you're 70? I hope not.
Francis Fish on April 3, 2009 12:52 PMOh god, Chala.
Success has to do with how the individual defines success. If you require money and fame for success, then success has to do with money and fame. If you do not, then it does not. But successfulness is a contextual measure. Is DHH even rich? I don't know. Obviously, it's impossible to use well-known example people who are not famous, so complaints that the examples of successful people are famous is pretty much a non-starter.
Anyway, whether or not Jeff's scale is valid, open and closed source has little-to-nothing to do with it. And random invocations of cancer and starvation make you a level 1 asshole on a scale of 8 types of asshole.
Anonymous on April 3, 2009 12:53 PMWhat about the 'Infamous Developer' - you know the ones that think they are famous and helpful, but really just start projects then never finish.
Kmett on April 3, 2009 12:59 PMI'm somewhere at the bottom of the list :(
Wayne on April 3, 2009 1:02 PMJeff has a knack for depressing me beyond measure. i have just now found out that after 8+ years of coding, that i'm incompetent and unworthy of the level one that so fits my current lifestyle or cyberstyle.
pitiful really. what if ones carrier path doesn't lead down the path of coding but the will, love and urge to code is there? i code a lot in my free time and i'm conversant with all current coding standards and technologies. but those standards above, they don't place me anywhere!
they also inspire me.
i take solace in that closing These levels aren't entirely serious. Not every programmer aspires to the same things in their career.
Nice one Jeff congs on the leveling up to seven :-)
I'd replace Dead with Epic... or else, Holy Coder of St. Cuthbert
The best thing you can do with your programming talent is share it with others. Become a teacher or a mentor. Knowledge is wasted if it's not shared.
Joel on April 4, 2009 2:22 AMI meant Dead Programmer figuratively, not literally.
As in people will remember you after you're..
Sheesh.
Wow.
That confirms it. Coding Horror is dead.
Y'know, like, figuratively.
Shishberg on April 4, 2009 2:31 AMI agree with the Earlier comments where is [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper]Admirial Grace Murray Hopper[/url]?
Kranor on April 4, 2009 3:26 AMB@@@er forgot the no html bit!!!!
Kranor on April 4, 2009 3:28 AMi worked for a while at a large software corp which had quite a good differentiation between the mgt. track and the programmer track.
for programmers it was something like:
- junior dev
- dev
- senior dev
- team lead
- junior architect
- senior architect
- technical specialist
not sure the names are right but these mapped directly to the management levels all the way up to svp.
On the topic of dead programmers, how about Phil Katz? He's dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Katz
Anyway, whether or not Jeff's scale is valid, open and closed source has little-to-nothing to do with it.
Open-source has nothing to do with it? Nothing to do with success? With cancer? You bunch of Visual Basic morons. Remember, while rock stars talk, programmers code. Keep reading blogs you uncivilized microsoft cockroaches.
Read, read, read!
http://www.informatics-review.com/open.html
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Jon Skeet yet given his micro-celebrity status on Stackoverflow
Chris on April 4, 2009 4:29 AMWhat about the Programmer who realized they can't be programming all their life and decided to do the next best thing, become a systems analyst. That's ME.
Ex-Programmer on April 4, 2009 4:29 AMI rather be 'successful' in everything in life than just be a dead programmer, let alone famous programmer. Balance is key to life. It's cliched but often missed by geeks. I mean no offense to geeks.
Andrew on April 4, 2009 4:34 AMHey, you forgot Programmer who blogs rather than programming ;-)
Shmork on April 4, 2009 4:41 AMB@@@er forgot the no html bit!!!!
Kranor on April 4, 2009 5:05 AMA couple of years ago I run a survey on a developer group meeting asking people what they were doing then and what they wanted to do in a 5 years from that moment.
a href=http://blog.brodzinski.com/2007/04/career-paths-for-not-only-developers.htmlResults of the survey/a were at least a bit surprising. Anyway one thing which appeared was that keeping developer role in few years wasn't very popular choice. Only one fourth of developers considered that as their career goal.
Most of the time being a developer isn't seen as a very prestigious role (which is pretty wrong I believe). Usually people prefer to end up as architects or some kind of expert consultant.
Pawel Brodzinski on April 4, 2009 5:15 AMI am a 4 and 1 at the same time! :)
Jeff on April 4, 2009 5:22 AMOh I remember THAT question alright! I was asked the whole five year thing seven years ago during the interview for my current programming job. Little did I realise I would still be in the same company all these years later!
Phil on April 4, 2009 5:26 AMHey, you forgot Programmer who blogs rather than programming ;-)
That's Jeff, the famous blogger (sorry, programmer). So, Jeff considers himself to be above than the working and unknown programmer?
Oh boy. Can you name someone from the development team that created the software for the first laser-powered aircraft? Of course not. They are all unknown programmers.
Do you know Mikhail Fursov and Lionel Le Folgoc? Of course not. And yet, you think you are a couple of levels above them, don't you
Chala on April 4, 2009 5:27 AMI got high... and now I'm programming at level 9... suckers!
kwahom on April 4, 2009 5:37 AMElves and Gnomes Programmers?
Do they later become Famous or Dead/Immortal or Legendary?
Success is for kids, real men change the game silently.
I rather be 'successful' in everything in life than just be a dead
programmer, let alone famous programmer. Balance is key to life.
Amen to that. While in 5 years I see myself still living as a programmer, thats not really what I want to do with my life. Don't misunderstand me, I love what I do, but I don't want to be still behind a desk when I'm 60, there are many things I want to do (travel around the world, make a band and play in nightclubs, paint) and I don't want to wait to my retirement. Sure, I CAN do these thing for 20, 30, even 40 years more, but that's definitely not what I WANT to do...
Jeff -
In which category should we put Tony (C.A.R.) Hoare? He's probably saved more CPU cycles than anyone on the planet.
- Lepto
Lepto Spirosis on April 4, 2009 7:02 AMI work for a big technology consultancy and I see a lot of bad programming. But this bad programming isn't always because it's written by bad programmers.
Most bad programming I see is down to the conflict between Getting something done now and doing something properly . And the blame of this lays exclusively at the feet of project managers who a lot of they time have zero software development experience. They can split tasks up nicely on a gantt chart, but they don't understand the complexities of programming.
RandomConsultant on April 4, 2009 7:13 AMAs for all you guys babbling about how people are missing the point of the post ... what is the point?
Where do you see yourself in five years?
My suggestion is to look at programmers you respect, or for that matter *anyone* you respect in any field, and think about what they accomplished in their career -- and how.
It's about picking a direction rather than floating through life like that feather in Forrest Gump, or that plastic bag in American Beauty. I know because I used to be that feather, that plastic bag, until 2004.
Jeff Atwood on April 4, 2009 7:38 AMI'm probably at a 4.79. However I look forward to 9 as I'm positive c# is alive and well in Heaven.
Chris on April 4, 2009 7:40 AMUnknown Programmer and Bad programmer. Did somebody say Microsoft Access.
pete on April 4, 2009 9:04 AM1 vote for changing dead to immortal
Ben on April 4, 2009 9:29 AMI always answer Where do you see yourself in five years with Fugitive from justice.
Everyone laughs -- and if they don't then you probably don't want to work there.
Mathew Ferguson on April 4, 2009 9:36 AM@Jeff Atwood:
It's about picking a direction rather than floating through life like that feather in Forrest Gump, or that plastic bag in American Beauty. I know because I used to be that feather, that plastic bag, until 2004.
That's a bit melodramatic isn't it?
Wow great list. You could re-use it for a lot of different disciplines. I'm a 4-5 Industrial Designer. Did you notice in the comments people rank themselves as somewhere in between? I guess no one wants to be perfectly pegged just as you have called it or seen as static.
oops on April 4, 2009 11:17 AMUnder the interviewee hood: My greatest strength is that I can spin my greatest weakness as my greatest strength. Mwahhaha!
Cringe-worthy during interviews but certainly introspection-worthy
Very interesting were the subtle distinctions between Unknown Programmer and Average Programmer and Famous Programmer and Successful Programmer.
Nice post Jeff!
Aarti on April 4, 2009 11:24 AMSorry man, love your columns in general, but... You are equating levels of programming competence with fame and peer worship. Totally disagree with the idea that mastery equals Big Business Success or Idolized Godlike Aspect.
I propose instead:
I program because I need to get things done, and I get them done. I know what needs to be built and what doesn't. I build the smallest possible system with the maximum impact. I advise and mentor others to help them achieve their best. I live modestly and within my means. I enjoy my life and the pleasures my work brings. I don't need a Wikipedia entry or acolytes, or to be featured in xkcd comics.
PS, I recognize that your article is tongue in cheek, but nonetheless it is thought provoking and therefore worthy of comment :)
NIck on April 4, 2009 12:27 PMJust adding myself to the chorus of people pointing out that (a) Knuth and Kay are still very much alive and (b) using the phrase dead programmer figuratively is *not* a good use of the English language.
Shishberg on April 4, 2009 1:48 PMI'm kinda scared to think about where I fall on this list. Its probably depressingly low. Oh well I guess that gives me something to work towards :) .
Serinox on April 5, 2009 2:08 AMWhatever, but there needs to be designers, architects, and analysts too. And their levels. Programmers are or at least shouldn't be alone.
Silvercode on April 5, 2009 2:09 AMI see myself at 4.8 but I aim to be 6.0
Andrei Rinea on April 5, 2009 2:47 AMWell we all know Jeff is number 3, an Amateur Programmer.
James on April 5, 2009 4:34 AMHow do you people find the time babbling about this nonsense while you're working programmers?. Either you're very talented with multitasking capabilities or you don't work enough...
Guitarmother on April 5, 2009 4:58 AMThis is pretty bad.
All these levels are obvious. Why do they need to be stated at all?
This list has no redeeming values whatsoever.
Tongue planted firmly in cheek? Nothing in here approaches humour.
JoeProgrammer on April 5, 2009 5:20 AMgoing to b-school so i don't have to freakin code any longer.
oracle programmer on April 5, 2009 6:33 AMHmm… shouldn't this have gone from level zero to level seven instead?
evan on April 5, 2009 6:37 AMWhy don't you change 'dead' programmer to 'immortal' programmer?
genghis on April 5, 2009 7:02 AMSorry but Gates is not a programmer.
Jay on April 5, 2009 7:41 AMTo be honest, the levels of programming are probably better represented by a B-tree rather than a list.
Nat on April 5, 2009 8:39 AMLmao @ Jay, afraid Gates was a programmer, doesnt know what he does now
Ananth on April 5, 2009 10:31 AMI'm sorry to hear Mr. Knuth has passed away. He was quite a remarkable person.
fschwiet on April 5, 2009 10:31 AMExcellent post Jeff
Sarat on April 5, 2009 11:05 AMSo when a programmer builds a business around his work he ALSO has to be famous in order to be successful?
What a load of poppycock.
Future Technology on April 5, 2009 12:06 PMGeez, when I read this post, I didn't think it was meant to be an exhaustive list of programmers... I guess I was wrong, because based on the comments, most people thought that was what Jeff was trying to do. No love for Bill Joy?!!! ha ha
chrishad95 on April 5, 2009 12:07 PMI'd label myself #4. I began coding as a hobby and luckily landed a fantastic programming job, but I have no aspirations to be programming professionally in the future. Not even 2 years from now.
Auir on April 5, 2009 12:50 PMobviously some programmers are better than others... this article is pointless/useless
silly article on April 5, 2009 1:00 PMStupid people..the level posted by jeff dont mean anything...
he is just trying to show directions to programmers...
and about bill gates..
he may not be a programmer ..but he certainly has a very strong background in programming ..and that reflects in his company..enuf said..
and now back to programming(read blogs..)...
:)
Gates was a programmer? Whom are you kidding? What code did he actually wrote?
Are you kidding me? get updated here : http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/History/The-History-of-Microsoft-1975/
I'd like to see an article about the 8 kinds of project manager.
gingerman on April 6, 2009 4:44 AMThe list seems overly focused on fame as a measurement of being a good programmer. I'd say a better measure is someone's scope of influence on software development projects. Certainly the top ranking would then be reserved for people who have a high enough profile that they influence thousands of developers.
But for most of us, there is plenty of opportunity to grow inside our organisations. The 'lower' level programmers mostly affect only the code they themselves touch. Next 'up' are those who mentor other programmers around them. Then there are those who lead small teams, then come those who make decisions which affect multiple teams, products, etc. in larger organisations.
Working on software that is used by other programmers, e.g. operating systems, development tools, libraries, etc. is another way you as a programmer can demonstrate growth and influence without necessarily having your name known to the programmers who get things done using your work.
So where do you draw the line between being a bad programmer and being an inexperienced programmer? How long do you need to be programming before you can honestly assess your skills and realize that you're a good/competent/bad programmer?
Tyler on April 6, 2009 6:15 AMHe he he... I love the #1s. They seem to be lost most of the times. They are kind of fun at times, apart from being pain most of the times.
Ashish K Mondal on April 6, 2009 7:20 AMWhen did fame become the pinnacle of a software development career?
Neil on April 6, 2009 7:52 AMIf you're going to include Gates, how about including Larry Ellison as well?
Steve Walker on April 6, 2009 8:47 AMDon’t we all start out as beginner (bad?) programmer and improve through reading, peer discussion / review and experience. What kind of environment do you need to grow great programmers?
John on April 7, 2009 5:22 AMThe only difference between #1 and #4 is self-awareness and people skills. Hooray, I jumped up to average with no increase in programming ability!
The author left out the non-programming skill of either looking good or looking the part of the programmer (or best of all, both). That helps a bad programmer rise to average, too.
BG on April 7, 2009 6:39 AMIt seems there are a few that feel this way, but I call into question the #2 Unknown Programmer's It's just a job, not their entire life... can a programmer still love to code even if it's not their entire life?
As it is with communicating with business, there's a fine and subtle line with appropriate and inappropriate; loving something with all your mind *at work* may not always be the same thing as loving something else with all of your heart and all of your mind and all of your strength. With my mind, I pour it all into my programming on the job and love it. Get that flow and it's great, if you know what I mean. But there's so much more to life, there's so much more that is worth our love. Get out and pursue something - run a marathon, climb mountains, get married, love your kids and be there for everything in their lives, have and know Something bigger than yourself.
Must there always one and not the other? Is it loving programming over everything else, or can you still pour it all into your programming *and* other things?
I say there is more, and it doesn't hold you back from just being an unknown programmer. Who knows... I'm not anyone special and that's fine. Maybe everyone will label me an unknown programmer and if so, so be it. I'd take this life I have any day over what I knew before when the only thing in my life for the most part was programming....
Chris on April 7, 2009 6:54 AMForgiving the contrived, just-for-fun nature of this list, I would say that there's a bit of a rift between 5 and 8. Ranks above 5 on this list begin mixing in industry exposure / success vs. pure computer scientist / developer prowess at ranks below 5 and at 8.
It's my belief that elevating oneself as a programmer above what you have as ~5 is really not so much a factor of becoming a stronger developer in the software-engineering-as-a-craft sense but a factor of whether or not one goes outside of software engineering and brings in orthogonal domain knowledge. And, then leverages their software engineering faculties to change that industry (or at least be somewhere in the forefront). An example might be advanced studies in mathematics/statistics and genetics and then writing software that advances our understanding of the genome in some way. Making money from that requires the fuzzy business skills you mention but business skills in the general sense won't create the opportunity.
Julius B. on April 7, 2009 7:22 AMMaybe putting you code _will_ transcend your death... will stop these pedants..
And I laugh at most people on here calling themselves 4, or 5 or even 6... you're all 3's and you know it. I suspect there's a fair bunch of 2's here too. :)
Jonny on April 7, 2009 8:23 AMAwesome post, thanks!
ramil on April 7, 2009 9:20 AMI think 4.Average Programmer and 3.Amateur Programmer should probably be swapped. At least in the way you are presenting. An amateur programmer will aspire to greatness more than your talented, yet unmotivated average programmer.
honestitsme on April 7, 2009 9:21 AMgood god, you people commenting are reading *WAY* to deep into this.. nobody cares how any of you think it should be different.
i enjoyed your post.
lol on April 7, 2009 9:39 AMLevel -1 (or FF): Professional Blogger
Writes about other levels, belongs to none. Diggs stuff.
BugFree on April 8, 2009 2:05 AMJeff, given your recent posting on mathematics, is it not curious that of your three immortal programmers, two (Dijkstra and Knuth) are/were mathematicians (Knuth is of course also a formidable programmer, but he is studied for his texts, which are mathematical.)
Jim Davis on April 8, 2009 7:11 AM@Jim Davidson, Kay also has this thing called PhD therefore more than a little mathematically inclined, for which both Jeff has derided in the past.
Jim, I had not thought of this previously but it is pretty ironic.
Charles on April 8, 2009 9:20 AM9. Cool Programmer
Can write just as good code as anybody else on the list but has a life. Can any time turn on or off the nerdy side but not locked into it; a free soul. You can have a conversation with him/her about any aspect of programming while sitting on a surf board waiting for the big one.
Yes, Gates was a programmer. He wrote Altair BASIC. If you'd ever cracked a copy of Levy's Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution you'd know he was a master at bumming instructions out of assembly.
Also:
I'm guessing the reason amateur is above unknown is that it is very possible to be in high school or working on an undergrad and become a well-known open source developer. Not well-known in the sense that a computer science professor will talk about you in a class. If I understand this correctly, it'd be like when my classmates say they came across my name related to some open source project (in a commit, in a changelog, working on a bug, discussion on a development list, etc) or random people online go oh! you fixed that bug I had!
If you know you're a bad programmer... does that still make you a bad programmer?
John on April 3, 2009 08:03 AM
HAHAHA!! That's a pretty valid question if you ask me. If you know you're bad at it, at least you're good enough to know you're bad.. right?...
Frank on April 9, 2009 6:56 AMWow, working for Megacorp can make you a few of those at once, and none of them good. Damn you, Initech!
Now get back to work, your inane program isn't going to code itself.
:)
Hutch on April 9, 2009 7:49 AMOne more thing.. not everyone wants to be famous.
Programmers aren't all social beings. I realize we have to view this blog through the perspective of a programmer who chose to be essentially a programming journalist, but really, Jeff. I can't speak for anyone else on this blog but myself, but I'd be a miserable type 7 or 8 on your scale. It's not what I aspire to. I want to be great, and I better myself constantly. *But* if I never, ever have to give a lecture or a presentation to 100+ people, I won't consider myself any less a programmer.
Oh, and Megacorp holds the code base to your hospital software. Those 'bad programmers' are the ones that help warn math-deficient nurses from giving you a wrong RX dosage or the correct blood type. There's no code-hero when you have a several million line base. Trust me.
Hutch on April 9, 2009 8:00 AMMaybe your Dead Programmer should be renamed to Immortals. Much more appropriate - dead or alive!
Harry v on April 11, 2009 6:16 AMSomewhere on this list, Guido van Rossum and Larry Wall's names *should* appear...
it seems interesting. so, can somebody rise from bad programmer to successful programmer? or from a lower level to an upper one?
ali on April 12, 2009 1:26 PMDijkstra is my personal Jesus. Everytime I code something, anything, I imagine him patting on my shoulder whenever I do something sensible and clearing his throat when I make some mistake. It's reassuring.
Ale on April 13, 2009 10:48 AMthe levels of programming are probably better represented by a B-tree rather than a list http://www.softwarefreedown.com
pingo on April 13, 2009 11:02 AMwhen I read this post, I didn't think it was meant to be an exhaustive list of programmers... I guess I was wrong, because based on the comments, most people thought that was what Jeff was trying to do. No love for Bill Joy?!!! ha ha http://www.vo2ov.com
putin on April 13, 2009 11:03 AMlove it! i'm 41 - been coding, since i was 12, and i hope to be coding for many many more years. just when things get stale, another technology/language comes along to challenge u.
the management track is for the truly uncreative - its all about following someone else's process... they've been trying to dumb me down for years but my brain cells keep coming back!
excellent blog - excellent responses - thsi is what bloggin is all about
kal on April 13, 2009 11:52 AMGreat article! But I see too few data points.
I'm interested to know in what category do these people fall in:
Linus Torvalds
Phil Greenspun
Joel Spolsky
Anders Hejlsberg
Bill Joy
James Gosling
PHP, C, C++, Java, Python, Perl Programming Tips techniques
A good read:
http://digg.com/programming/PHP_C_C_Java_Python_Perl_Programming_Tips_techniques
what about George Bush? I've heard he was a great programmer, at least he can write program to instruct troops to kill iraqi people :(
hey, we're talking about coding...not politics :)
Topan Hadi on April 17, 2009 5:41 AMInteresting. But see, any classification of any thing finally turns out nonesense. Don't label yourself, which is pathetic.
Dark9 on April 17, 2009 6:34 AMI believe Linus Torvalds should be in lvl 7, where Bill Gates should be in lvl 6
C# Programmer on April 20, 2009 2:23 AMThis is a ridiculous post.
There are two types:
1) Programmer - He who understands everything about the software development cycle AND the machine's he is working on.
2) Coder - He who thinks he is a programmer but just regurgitates code, occassionally creating something new from something old.
99.9999999% of the IT pro's who think they are programmers, are in fact coders of various skillsets.
Unless you program solely in machine code or 1's and 0s, you are a simple, replacable coder. You are not special and no one thinks you are.
And Gates, despite the stupidity of the comments here, did a LOT of coding in his early days. 16 hour days coding, working late nights coding, busting his ass coding. Doesnt mean he was the greatest coder, but he most certainly was a coder.
Comment feature: Bane of the internet. Let the idiots reign.
Adam on April 21, 2009 7:19 AMIf we're listing legendary programmers, second in the pantheon after Knuth: Edgar F Codd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_F._Codd
keith on April 28, 2009 3:03 AMUnknown Programmer.... hey, that's me!
Rob on April 28, 2009 6:04 AMWAIT - Ruby On Rails guy and ID guy make #7, but Gosling doesn't? This is a joke.
MIke on May 1, 2009 8:18 AMYou really should change the post where you specify the dead programmers. People who don't read the comments, don't realize your point, and thinks that guys are really all dead.
João Cavaleiro on May 3, 2009 6:06 AMwhat about men who haven't seen a programer in their life,
know nothing about programming ,but studying abt computers in college.
i am one such guy.
what to do?
The comments to this entry are closed.
|
|
Traffic Stats |