This link has been bookmarked by 150 people . It was first bookmarked on 27 Apr 2006, by netklon.
-
01 Jun 15
-
05 Jun 13
Adam Bro"It's not just a matter of "10 times more productive." It's that the "average productive" developer never hits the high notes that make great software."
programming software management development productivity hiring statistics
-
21 May 13
-
22 Apr 13
-
does it even make sense to talk about having the "best programmers?"
-
, design adds value faster than it adds cost.
-
if you try to skimp on programmers, you'll make crappy software, and you won't even save that much money.
-
The quality of the work and the amount of time spent are simply uncorrelated.
-
There are added benefits to using the smallest team possible;
-
no matter how long they work, they never produce something as good as what the great programmers can produce.
-
The mediocre talent just never hits the high notes that the top talent hits all the time.
-
You can't afford to be number two, or to have a "good enough" product. It has to be remarkably good, by which I mean, so good that people remark about it.
-
-
17 Jan 13
-
18 Sep 12
-
the real goal for software companies should be converting capital into software that works.
-
Best Working Conditions → Best Programmers → Best Software → Profit! -
design adds value faster than it adds cost.
-
The quality of the work and the amount of time spent are simply uncorrelated.
-
A single good programmer working on a single task has no coordination or communication overhead
-
-
28 Aug 12
Jason Wehmhoener"Design adds value faster than it adds cost" - @spolsky http://t.co/f2CECNGR
-
29 Feb 12
David HamiltonWow, loved this.
-
14 Feb 12
-
13 Feb 12
-
11 Dec 11
-
There's just nothing to see here, and that's the point. The quality of the work and the amount of time spent are simply uncorrelated.
I asked Professor Eisenstat about this, and he pointed out one more thing: because assignments are due at a fixed time (usually midnight) and the penalties for being late are significant, a lot of students stop before the project is done. In other words, the maximum time spent on these assignments is as low as it is partially because there just aren't enough hours between the time the assignment is handed out and the time it is due. If students had unlimited time to work on the projects (which would correspond a little better to the working world), the spread could only be higher.
-
The real trouble with using a lot of mediocre programmers instead of a couple of good ones is that no matter how long they work, they never produce something as good as what the great programmers can produce.
Five Antonio Salieris won't produce Mozart's Requiem. Ever. Not if they work for 100 years.
-
The mediocre talent just never hits the high notes that the top talent hits all the time. The number of divas who can hit the f6 in Mozart's Queen of the Night is vanishingly small, and you just can't perform The Queen of the Night without that famous f6.
-
Happiness.
Emotional appeal.
These are what make the huge hits, in software products, in movies, and in consumer electronics. And if you don't get this stuff right you may solve the problem but your product doesn't become the #1 hit that makes everybody in the company rich so you can all drive stylish, happy, appealing, cars like the Ferrari Spider F-1 and still have enough money left over to build an ashram in your back yard.
-
-
19 Oct 11
-
11 Jun 11
-
"<!--StartFragment -->adding manpower to a late software project makes it later,"
-
A single good programmer working on a single task has no coordination or communication overhead.
-
Creative Zen team could spend years refining their ugly iPod knockoffs and never produce as beautiful, satisfying, and elegant a player as the Apple iPod
-
they're not going to make a dent in Apple's market share because the magical design talent is just not there
-
The mediocre talent just never hits the high notes that the top talent hits all the time
-
Apple made a decision based on style, in fact, iPod is full of decisions that are based on style
-
style is not something that 100 programmers at Microsoft or 200 industrial designers at the inaptly-named Creative are going to be able to achieve
-
Style.
Happiness.
Emotional appeal.
-
winner-take-all system
-
-
11 Oct 10
-
16 Jul 10
-
27 May 10
-
Hamish GrahamThe quality of the work and the amount of time spent are simply uncorrelated.
The real trouble with using a lot of mediocre programmers instead of a couple of good ones is that no matter how long they work, they never produce something as good as what the great programmers can produce.
The mediocre talent just never hits the high notes that the top talent hits all the time.-
And in fact the conventional wisdom in the world of copycat business journalists and large companies who rely on overpaid management consultants to think for them, chew their food, etc., seems to be that the most important thing is reducing the cost of programmers.
-
So, why isn't there room in the software industry for a low cost provider, someone who uses the cheapest programmers available? (Remind me to ask Quark how that whole fire-everybody-and-hire-low-cost-replacements plan is working.)
Here's why: duplication of software is free. That means that the cost of programmers is spread out over all the copies of the software you sell. With software, you can improve quality without adding to the incremental cost of each unit sold.
-
Or, roughly speaking, if you try to skimp on programmers, you'll make crappy software, and you won't even save that much money.
-
There's just nothing to see here, and that's the point. The quality of the work and the amount of time spent are simply uncorrelated.
-
The real trouble with using a lot of mediocre programmers instead of a couple of good ones is that no matter how long they work, they never produce something as good as what the great programmers can produce.
-
The mediocre talent just never hits the high notes that the top talent hits all the time.
-
It's not just a matter of "10 times more productive." It's that the "average productive" developer never hits the high notes that make great software.
-
You can't afford to be number two, or to have a "good enough" product. It has to be remarkably good, by which I mean, so good that people remark about it.
-
-
24 Mar 10
-
11 Feb 10
-
02 Jan 10
-
20 Sep 09
-
31 Mar 09
-
24 Feb 09
-
05 Feb 09
-
16 Jan 09
-
08 Jan 09
-
02 Dec 08
-
24 Nov 08
-
14 Oct 08
-
20 Apr 08
-
10 Mar 08
-
31 Jan 08
-
02 Dec 07
-
03 Jul 07
Cristian EscalanteIn March, 2000, I launched this site with the shaky claim that most people are wrong in thinking you need an idea to make a successful software company:
-
29 Jun 07
-
22 Apr 07
-
03 Apr 07
-
07 Mar 07
-
17 Feb 07
-
11 Jan 07
-
04 Dec 06
-
21 Sep 06
-
19 Sep 06
-
08 Sep 06
-
24 Aug 06
-
04 Aug 06
-
23 Jun 06
-
19 Jun 06
viniciusjlThe common belief is that when you're building a software company, the goal is to find a neat idea that solves some problem which hasn't been solved before, implement it, and make a fortune. We'll call this the build-a-better-mousetrap belief. But the rea
article toread blog joel people management design development software
-
18 Jun 06
Colleen Wainwrightwhy you can't afford to be #2, and some sound advice on how to be #1
business entrepreneurship cool creativity beaneyes bestOf essays philosophy
-
10 Jun 06
-
28 Apr 06
tyler001Great article by Joel on being a "great" programmer and how it applies to his business model.
-
27 Apr 06
-
25 Apr 06
diigodeli dunbarBut I still haven't proven anything. What does it mean to be "the best programmer" and are there really such major variations between the quality of software produced by different programmers?
-
09 Feb 06
-
11 Dec 05
-
19 Aug 05
-
18 Aug 05
-
17 Aug 05
David CorkingJoel seems to think we won't have as much fun, or get such smart people, working on bespoke software. I hope he is wrong.
-
Nobody hires Dolly Parton to sing at weddings. That's why the most satisfying careers, if you're a software developer, are at actual software companies, not doing IT for some bank.
-
-
07 Aug 05
-
05 Aug 05
-
04 Aug 05
-
C KTalks about how hiring "good" programmers (even if they cost more) is better than hiring a lot of "cheap". (I totally agree with this!)
-
Steve WillerOne of only two collections of real empirical data regarding the difference between good and avg or bad programmers.
-
03 Aug 05
Kurtf you try to skimp on programmers, you'll make crappy software, and you won't even save that much money.
software design productivity performance development Management
-
02 Aug 05
-
01 Aug 05
-
29 Jul 05
-
28 Jul 05
M GJoel on Software addresses getting the best programmers possible
-
27 Jul 05
-
26 Jul 05
patdavies40Discussion about what it takes to make a successfull software product, and about good and mediocre developers
-
fernando_cuencaDiscussion about what it takes to make a successfull software product, and about good and mediocre developers
-
-
Lloyd ShepherdJoel on why hiring the best programmers is more than just talking
-
ken .Joel on the man month - more duffers do not make a great team/product - "design adds value faster than it adds cost", software distribution is nothing, unit cost is small, cost cutting kills value, the goose that lays the egg
business creativity facilitation knowledge management programming statistics wisdom
Page Comments
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.