Nelson FerrazPublicado em 27/02/2008
r3 - 27 Feb 2008 - NelsonFerraz
Encontrar bons programadores, em qualquer linguagem é difícil. Porém um programador realmente bom pode fazer o trabalhador de 5 programadores médios. Este artigo procura mostrar como você pode identificar e contratar um bom programador.
Why is it so hard to find good programmers?
The simplest reason is when a company finds a good developer they do more to make sure that person is happy which leads to longer tenures. Better salary, more flexible working conditions, good tools, interesting projects, and better perks can often keep a programmer working for you longer.
Another obvious reason is that experts in any field are small in number, so your possible talent pool is limited. This leads managers and HR departments to settle for average or even below average developers. I believe this is the single biggest mistake a technology oriented company can make, regarding developers, just short of not using a good version control system.
We're not talking about customer service representatives or sales people here. Just having a body to fill the seat is not, I repeat not, always a win for the company. Sub-standard programmers drag down the efficiency of your other developers with beginner questions, poor comments/documentation, and bad code that someone else will later be forced to spend time fixing.
Companies need to stop thinking about their developers as cogs in the machine. They are more akin to artists, authors, designers, architects, scientists, or CEOs. Would your HR department rush to find the first person who would willing to take on the role of Chief Scientist, Art Director, or CEO in your company? Of course not, they would spend the time to do a through talent search for just the right candidate, court them, and then compensate them appropriately. They realize that having the wrong person in that seat is much worse than having the seat empty. It is absolutely the same with programming.
Anyone who has been a developer or managed developers can tell you that an expert can accomplish as much as 10 average developers. However, companies typically pay only a 10-20% premium for an expert over the average programmer. Whether or not their title is Lead, Architect, Development Manager, Guru or whatever nomenclature the company uses. I am not saying that if your average developer is paid $50k/year that you should pony up $500k/year for an expert. The employer/employee relationship never works like that, but what employers don't seem to realize is that in the end paying more saves them more.
Let's look at an example. One common argument from HR departments is that they "can't find any Perl programmers, but they can't swing a cat without hitting a Java developer". While this is fairly accurate, they are approaching the problem from the wrong direction. If you fill your shop with 15 average Java developers, paying an average of $60k per developer you have an approximate labor cost of $900k/year for your development staff. Not considering any non-salary benefits.
Suppose you instead took the time to find 5 experts, or at least above average, Perl developers at $120k each per year. Here is a partial list of the pros and cons of such a scenario:
What is an expert programmer?
Experience is key, but not necessarily in ways you might imagine. Time in the saddle, with a particular language is not as important as diversity of experience. Someone who has worked in several disparate industries, a generalist, is often a much better developer than one who has spent years in the same industry. There are exceptions to this, but in general I have found this to be the case. Bonus points if your developer was a systems administrator in a former life.
Some of the best developers I know were originally trained as journalists, mathmaticians, linguists, and other professions not normally associated with software development.
Experts use better tools and care deeply about their craft. They aren't assembling bits on an assembly line, they are crafting a unique product to solve a unique problem. Experts are lazy, they work smarter rather than harder. Experts prefer the easiest solution that gets the job done. Experts aren't interested in creating complex solutions simply to have the complexity, that misguided egoism is the territory of more junior developers. They often get it right the first try and almost always on the second one.
Simply put, experts write readable code. They comment and document it appropriately based on the complexity and criticality of that particular piece of code.
All of this pays huge dividends when the next developer has to pick up where they left off. Especially if the next person isn't an expert. More reasons you want an expert programmer
Is your business technology oriented? Perhaps the software you create is even your main product. If nothing else I'm sure we can agree that if the software your developers create is to some degree critical to your business.
I've worked in many different environments, with people of every skill level, and it's very easy to tell whether or not a company has expert developers. Do you often find that the software is down? That it has as many bugs or even just idiosyncrasies that make no sense to the user as it does features? Do the users find it difficult to use? Is the problem at hand relatively simple compared to the training or documentation necessary to begin using the software?
If you answered yes to any of those questions you more than likely have average or below average developers.
When you work in an environment with experts things simply work. They are easier to use and require less initial training. The software is easier to modify. Requested changes happen more frequently and easily. Things just flow. It is the difference between Apple and Microsoft. It's the difference between the iPod and a 400 disc CD changer with 50+ buttons.
As with many things in life, sometimes you get what you pay for. I'd love to hear your comments and opinions on the subject.