Thanks to Emily’s creative recruiting tactics, Computerworld contributing writer, Mary Brandel, contacted us about an article she was writing (Rock Star Coders) in which she wanted to “take a look at the growing subculture of developers who’ve gained (or think they’ve gained) something along the lines of ’star status’ in the world of programming.”  We were happy to talk with her (trade emails, mostly), and she got particularly good insights from Clinton, a Senior Developer at Viget.  She left off my favorite thing that he said, though:

“When I saw an ad for Viget, the phrasing appealed to me: it showed that they cared that their developers were *people* as much as code-writing machines. They realized that speaking at a conference - I spoke as O’Reilly’s OSCON last year - is a good quality: it shows you seek to expose your thoughts. Maybe that’s the core of being a rockstar programmer: you aren’t afraid to show your code and your ideas to the world, and that lack of self-consciousness propels you to greatness.”

Of course, he wasn’t responding to our rock star post.  That came a bit later. 

I like the article and appreciate Mary’s work on it.  Since we came off as the pro-rock star term slant, I’d hope that anyone who reads the article takes the time to read the job post.  I would think you’d “get” that we are in fact pretty light-hearted about the term. 

I actually agree with Paul, Dan, and David — arrogant, picky, unpleasant people don’t make good developers (especially when they work on a team, as ours do).  Anyone who responds to a job post because they’re arrogant enough to think that they are the programming version of Bono isn’t going to be a fit.  At the same time, anyone who takes themselves so seriously as to be offended by the term “rock star” in a job listing and won’t give it a second look, also probably wouldn’t be a fit.  As I joked in the article (in a quote that was attributed to Patrick, which is unfortunate because he didn’t like the joke to begin with):

“We’ve been thinking that the rock star label has been overused in Rails job posts.  Next time we might try ‘Rails pirate’ or ‘Ruby MMA warrior.’”

Now, seeing it in the article, Patrick was right — it’s not very funny.  But, the point is, the term we use in the job listing is irrelevant.  We’re looking for exceptional people.  The reason “rock star” is relevant is because we’re looking for people who are confident enough to “be on a stage” (not necessarily literally) and share their work with other developers — not because that shows they’re arrogant showman, but because it means they probably write really good code (assuming their peers don’t mock their work) and because it shows they’re passionate enough to want to share and learn within the community.

One other bit of clarification.   Why did I say this?

“For us, a rock star developer really boils down to two things: talent and passion,” Williams says. In other words, you either “got it” or you don’t. While you can become a better creative thinker or problem-solver, he says, “ultimately you either have the raw talent to reach ‘rock star’ status or you don’t.”

I didn’t say it to discourage anyone aspiring to be a great developer.  I’m a big believer that hard work will take you far.  The connection I was trying to make is that I believe that great programming ability is an artistic talent, not unlike designing or even painting.  I can mess around on a guitar (poorly), but no matter how hard I practice I will never be Jimi Hendrix.  I can draw a bit, but I’ll never be Picasso.  Anyone can practice and be a decent artist.  To be one of the great ones, you have to have to start with some innate raw talent — and then heap on mountains of hard work — to achieve that elite status.