January 29. 2010 11:44

An alternate view point to consider from Ted Dziuba: teddziuba.com/.../i-dont-code-in-my-free-time.html

James Kolpack

January 29. 2010 11:45

A lot of live to program developers tend to suffer because they have to work with program to live developers. The passion to develop something is a lot different among the two. And the live to program developers tend to feel like they are carrying dead weight around. I also categorized "live to program" guys as the true "software developers" and the "program to live" guys as the "IT workers".

Find a comparision among the two at kevinrodrigues.com/.../

Kevin

January 29. 2010 12:10

Well, I do a lot of programming in my free time, at home, following my own secret agenda. I love learning new things and solve new problems.

On the other hand, programming as a job doesn't quite motivate me. I'm only working here because I need the money, I don't really care about the company's projects, clients and stuff. It's just my job, I get little enjoyment from it. Unless, for example, I need to learn how to work with a new paradigm in the context of a project. But then, deadlines usually kill any enjoyment I could get from it.

Do I live to program? Quite so. Do I program to live? From this angle, it could be said so. I go home and live to program. I go to work and program to live. That's it.

Locoluis

January 29. 2010 12:24

.NET Pulse 1/29/2010

.NET Pulse 1/29/2010

Cadred (dotNET)

January 29. 2010 12:46

I really enjoy reading the alternate viewpoints that people are taking on this article. I can totally appreciate the fact that many of us enjoy programming in our own free time better then doing it for a project manager who is constantly hounding you for a "% complete". That is the exact reason why I moved to the DBA group at my company a few years ago. The DBA group pays better at my employer and my manager still lets me write code to automatic tasks and increase productivity. The best thing about making utilities for the DBA group is that I get to write the requirements and pick the tools that I want to use. Best of all, they pay for my MSDN license!

My whole point was that I like people who are passionate about their job. Perhaps asking people if they code in their free time is not the best question to ask but it is a very good indicator about there passion for programming.

Michael Ceranski

January 29. 2010 14:47

"feels empty unless they are writing code or learning something new about programming"

I'm really glad to hear I'm not the only one who gets this. I have a weird feeling of discomfort if I get through a day without starting Visual Studio.

Harry Jennerway

January 30. 2010 07:56

Social comments and analytics for this post

This post was mentioned on Twitter by mdingalla: RT: @mikeceranski: blogged:  Do You Live to Program or Program To Live? http://goo.gl/fb/56hb #programming Amen

uberVU - social comments

January 30. 2010 18:31

I get antsy at work whenever I have to spend multiple days going to meetings or messing with MS Project, rather than working inside Visual Studio, SQL Management Studio, PowerShell or other medium (FrontPage, SharePoint Designer, and Excel don't do it for me).  But it isn't so much to write code for the sake of writing code.  I need the satisfaction of using my technical skill set to solve a real problem.  I will engage in the occasional "Science Project" to learn a new technology, but overall I want to expend my efforts in solving an actual problem and building a tool that someone will actually use.  If my labor bears no fruit, it feels almost as empty to me as if I didn't write anything at all.

So I guess I don't live to code as much as I live to solve problems.

That being said, the projects I enjoy the most are the ones where I actively learn about and incorporate the latest technologies.  If you live to solve problems, and you solve everything with Visual FoxPro, you're not doing anyone any favors ;)

Jeremy Budnack

January 31. 2010 18:46

I hate coding. In my book the best code is no code. If I never had to write another line again I'd be over the moon. So I'm clearly in the "Program to Live" category. That said, I'm damn good at it and have now been doing it for over 8 years commercially (I'm not likely to stop any time soon either).

Now here's where the theory breaks down - I "Live to Develop Software". Almost every spare moment is spent thinking about development. I wouldn't be commenting here if it wasn't important to me.

So what's the difference? Look at it this way: all the bitchen code in the world doesn't necessarily mean you've made good software. There's a lot more to the process than just programming.

For me code is just the tool (a VERY important one I agree). But what's more important in software development - and the thing many developers still forget - is the problem to solve; the customer; the business; the documentation; interface design; the user experience; the social change and impact; the ongoing cost of maintenance; the mess we leave behind.

For all that I can't argue with what you say. They world needs more Ninja programmers. But more than that the world desperately needs more Ninja “software developers” - those of us who live the whole experience and outside the code.

Jason Snelders

January 31. 2010 20:34

Pingback from rhondatipton.net

Weekly Link Post 130 « Rhonda Tipton’s WebLog

rhondatipton.net

February 1. 2010 17:15

Pingback from kozlenko.info

Daily links 2010-02-01 | Maxim's blog

kozlenko.info

February 14. 2010 18:34

I read this blog post and the alternate viewpoint from Ted Dziuba that is linked up top of the comments.

Is it humanly possible to be a good developer and yet, never touch the stuff outside of work? Well, yes, of course. BUT from my personal experiences... I've worked with the "Program to Live" guys/girls in multiple jobs and they just don't have that extra "positive anxiousness" that comes with being a passionate and curious "Live to Program" type of developer. And you're damn right, if I have two equally skilled job candidates, I'm going to pick the one who eats and sleeps this stuff over the "Program to Live" guy any day of the week. It's healthy having those passionate juices flowing through the office.

And I can also attest, it has been my 'OUTSIDE of work' development ventures that have dominated interviews I have been in. Most employers will ask me about one of my outside websites and listen to me talk about the technology choices I exercised and why. You know you can tell if someone is full of shit just by listening to them talk about development for ten minutes.

I think it's hard for those of us who are super passionate about this to envision doing this for a living just as a job.

Matt

February 17. 2010 05:44

Michael, don't forget those "wet behind the ears" straight out of college programmers are just that - wet behind the ears. Certainly they have a LOT of enthusiasm and ideas and we desperately need to tap into that. But over the years I've learnt nothing trumps experience in building *quality* software - mistakes have been learnt and the eyes are open wider.

Think of it this way - would you have only a bunch of straight out of school architects and builders design and build your new home? Of course not! You want a master architect and builder there to guide the apprentices. But here's the trick - you want a master with the years of experience that not only guides the team but also listens to fresh ideas and can run with the ones they think will work.

Putting aside the differences between "programmers" and "software developers" (which I brought up in my last comment) I have to agree there is definitely a place for the gun programmers that "live to program". These people are becoming like our industry's Special Forces soldier. I say "becoming" because I find they're still a very narrow-focused breed of programmer (often lacking the ability to see the larger picture). An important person nevertheless because they do drive some VERY important change.

I wonder though. Software development will inevitably (or maybe already is) end up like other lines of work. There are those who are guns (Live to Program). Those who are good (Program to Live). And those who you can only shake your head at. I'm basically talking your A, B, and C level works. I wonder if we get so caught up with the A-Level worker we forget that our B-Level are in fact doing some our most solid and important work and need to be nurtured? What if we spent more time cultivating our B-Level workers? We may never get A-Level results out of them (is that really a problem though?) but we may be surprised and see them pull off some remarkable results.

Jason Snelders