Were you really a good programmer, you'd have chosen to be a Jesus programmer with a Darwin mixin. But you didn't so now you have to worry about the diamond problem.
Because we all know that people are being literal when looking for a rockstar. Right? Have a little imagination.
I'm not a huge fan of it, myself, but there are certain scenarios where using 'rockstar' or 'ninja' even makes sense -- asuming the rest of the posting is up to par.
In the positive sense, it refers to somebody who is looked up to with awe and respect, like a rock star. For example, DHH had something of a rockstar air when Rails was the cool new kid because everyone was in awe of the guy who created this awesome framework. What they're trying to convey with "Are you a rockstar?" is "Does everyone you work with think you are amazing in an almost unattainable way?"
It's still stupid, lazy phrasing IMO, but that seems to be people's meaning.
It's still a superficial classification leading to narcissistic behavior.
You know why? Because it's easy to make people think you're some kind of misunderstood genius without having any kind of valuable work whatsoever.
I.e. you just need to be a good salesman when selling your image to others.
I love DHH, but how many engineers and computer scientists have pushed the state of the art of our field much further than a web framework can ever do and without being viewed with awe by others?
it's easy to make people think you're some kind of misunderstood genius without having any kind of valuable work whatsoever
Are you kidding? It's incredibly difficult to impersonate a rockstar. Even I, who have not watched a single minute of American Idol, know how to tell a true rockstar in thirty seconds: Auditions. You hand them an instrument or a microphone and tell them to perform.
And a rockstar needs a portfolio and -- if possible -- a fanbase [1], and these are also hard to fake. Evidence on Youtube suggests that Stefani Germanotta had a lot of musical talent and intelligence as a sophomore in music school, but she didn't become a rockstar until she'd developed a persona, adopted a stage name, released some tracks, and sold them to enough people. Real rockstars ship.
Analogously, we all know that when a programmer comes through the door claiming to be a rockstar you have to insist on seeing their portfolio and watching them perform. That's what all the discussions of the interview process are about.
---
[1] In practice, the software metaphor rockstar really means something more like "aspiring rock star"; it doesn't necessarily refer to a programmer with a "fan base". If you actually want to hire Linus Torvalds, or Lady Gaga for that matter, you don't put out an ad asking for a "rockstar". You phone them up personally, or phone their agent.
"All four of them are rockstars. Only one of them wouldn't be where it is today without the other 3. Guess which one."
Jonathan Ive.
---
"[Steve Jobs'] return to Apple in 1997, after it purchased NeXT, is now the stuff of legend. In the design department, Jobs saw the work of a young Briton called Jonathan Ive and asked for a meeting. Ive, underused and ignored for a year, turned up with a resignation letter tucked into the back pocket of his jeans. He left with instructions to unleash his talent. The result was the iMac..."
First, the disclaimer: You obviously can't expect language evolution to be logical. People say "couldn't care less", for example, to the annoyance of pedantic people everywhere.
Second, one can't rule out the possibility that "rockstar" started out as irony, or even an insult, applied to a specific handful of people who later became famous and carried the word along with them. That's what happened to the word impressionist, for example, which was coined by a derisive outsider as part of an insulting review but then got adopted by the Impressionists themselves and eventually became a standard term for a specific flavor of artist.
Having said all of that... There are lots of traits of actual rockstars that the word "rockstar" is meant to convey:
You're looking for an artist, not a bureaucrat.
You're looking for someone who attempts to connect with an audience, who understands that their job is communication.
You're looking for someone who shows evidence of patient and diligent practice. Though the Sex Pistols might be the exception that proves the rule [1], you don't become a rockstar by sheer luck, or charisma, or the right hairstyle, or by taking heroin and smashing up hotel rooms. You need talent. You have to practice a whole lot. Generally alone, and in obscurity, for little pay, because you take joy in the practice of your art, and because you are a forward-looking person with big goals.
You're looking for someone with big goals, someone who aspires to at least a little more than the average session musician. Someone who is going somewhere and can inspire others to follow.
---
[1] Remember: If progressive rock had never been invented, the Sex Pistols could never have succeeded: AFAIK the first wave of punk rock was a reaction to other genres. And it was extremely temporary... within literally weeks the punk movement was dominated by people who had some practice, if only because the early bands inevitably got some practice. ;)
To me, saying "rockstar" would imply the following positives:
an otherwise-inexplicable charisma, resonance-with and/or understanding-of what the average person wants, and an employer who pays commensurate with the employee, not the job
"Rockstar" definitely carries the baggage of being highly-associated with douchebags and prima-donnas. But it's not all negative.
Eh, it's a cheap form of social signaling which is performing it's function perfectly. Like how baby names move from high class to low class through diffusion, someone advertising for a rockstar 3 - 5 years ago was a good signal that you should consider applying and someone advertising for it now is a good sign that you shouldn't.
I actually saw someone who was job-hunting self-describe with "My technical experience, business knowledge, and passion for technology make me a ninja-rockstar."
Seems like to most people it means that whoever wrote the job post has unreasonable expectations. Also, rockstars make a lot of money. If a company really is looking for a rockstar, they better be able to pay for it.
This whole anti-rockstar programmer movement sees the glass half empty rather than the glass half full. Rockstar programming should be encouraged, not shunned.
It would be wonderful to have a Lenny Kravitz or Mick Jagger despite being washed up and well passed their musical prime able to crank out good Python code. So why the development community energizing this ongoing global campaign against the "rockstar programmer" and thus discouraging any attempt by these rockstars to reinvent themselves and to find success in a respectable and head-down career change? I myself am all for it.
In terms of employment, they'll be good for your firm and its morale:
- entertaining lunch break stories, and "musical recesses"
- Because they're usually older and not money driven but rather skills driven, easier to manage and remunerate.
- You'll be seen as an equal opportunity employer and not age-biased.
- Most importantly, the PR value of having your startup or firm name-dropped globally alongside your rockstar will be priceless, more than making up for novice skill sets.
- Lastly, it's altruistic: getting rockstars off the stage and into the coding booth will be good for music: no more comeback hits. And we won't have these dinosaurs taking attention away from what would otherwise be standout emerging artists.
Rockstar programmers, bring 'em on I say. Let's support the likes of Kylie Minogue and Steven Tyler in their learning to become Pythonistas or Rubyists, or whatever language they choose, whether that learning be done on the tour bus or tour jet. So on behalf of the development community everywhere, we're right behind you, and we'll help. They'll mitigate further hearing loss too.
1. Occam's razor would suggest that rather than hiring a "rockstar of programming" you should hire a "programming star". It's much simpler.
2. A real programming superstar usually has much, much higher hopes than to become become the ultimate Pythonista or Rubyist. Good programmers transcend languages and technologies.
> I think that a startup is not the place for that kind of person. I just want incredibly intelligent, competent people who are opinionated but value each other as well.
Well good luck then to you, sir. If you find that Perfect Employee who's willing to start a job that might not exist in 6 months with below average pay and benefits (the standard startup MO), hire him or her immediately.
Interesting, I thought start ups (at least of the VC-funded-grow-fast-and-sell-to-google/ms/oracle/ibm type) normally offer higher salaries than average to mitigate the longer working hours and lack of job security.
You join a startup knowing those risks. And yet people still do it because we know that with that risk comes a potential reward at the end. BTW, he's not asking for the perfect employee, he's asking for what every company should be asking for. If not I question why you're hiring to begin with.
You really think that there exist enough "incredibly intelligent" people to fill every tech role in existence?
Sure, every company can _ask_ for the top 1%, but unless they're delusional they're going to have to deal with the fact that some of the people they hire are just going to have to be average. Doubly so for a company offering no job security and long/chaotic hours for a very low chance of payoff in a few years.
Trust me, I know the risks because I've worked almost exclusively with and for start-ups. To me it's completely self evident why startup culture attracts the crazies or "rockstar" programmers. Who else is going to gamble so much time and effort on a what's almost certainly a failed venture? Usually not the industry's top talent, unless they're one of the founders.
Of course, I'm speaking very generally and making sweeping, stereotypes based on my own experience, which may not accurately reflect reality.
--edit--
My post above sounds a bit more aggressive than I intended, sorry. All I'm saying is that "incredibly intelligent" programmers with good communication skills are rare and it's pretty unreasonable (IMO) for a startup founder to just expect them to show up just because he has an idea and a little bit of money.
Gadzooks - I was wondering where all the traffic to my brand-new posterous was coming from. First time for me on Hacker News - thanks for all the comments (thanks fromedome for posting)
Basically what the author is saying he wants people what are smart a good, but humble, and not with narcistic traits.
What a 'rockstar' type of title might attract people that may / may not, be good, but are highly narcistic:
This paragraph is a classical npd trait:
"Do these people really want to hire self-absorbed pricks who show flashes of brilliance but generally leave mayhem in their wake? That's what a rockstar is. Selfish, demanding, unreliable, and requiring others to lavish them with adoration or they will have a tantrum and walk off the stage in the middle of the concert. Then they overdose and end up on a reality show."
I want smart people on my team, but I NEED people that can actually work with a team. In my experience "Rockstars" are usually kids who have a knack for development and fragile egos.
