Timeline for How does a "rockstar" performer integrate into an Agile team?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 4:53 | comment | added | Ewan | when i say 'make money' im talking about the business, not the dev | |
| Apr 12, 2017 at 19:38 | comment | added | T. Sar | @Ewan Rockstars are Ego trippers. They don't want the money, they want to shine. High-paid devs are the ones that manage to work well in teams in can play along with management. If you clash with management - the thing the rockstar loves to do - you won't be on the big paycheck list anytime soon. Again - a rockstar developer isn't a good coder, he is a good salesman. | |
| Apr 12, 2017 at 4:11 | comment | added | Ewan | The point is to make money, not 'good' code. 'rockstar' programmer means a dev that produces the goods, but doesnt play well with management structures. code quality could be good or bad its not part of the definition | |
| Apr 12, 2017 at 4:03 | comment | added | T. Sar | @Ewan Coding isn't just about delivering in time. Time is important, sure, but if you don't take the attention to the design and the properties of your tech you'll end up with a massive bunch of spaghetti. A Rockstar knows how to sale his skills as awesome but he rarely delivers the same quality of better skilled, more humble devs. Their work is all about their ego, not their products. That's why they can't work on teams. | |
| Apr 11, 2017 at 16:38 | comment | added | Ewan | Thats just a value judgement on your half. change the word 'good' to something less subjective and its just a case of products delivered in time X | |
| Apr 11, 2017 at 11:46 | comment | added | T. Sar | @ewan There is a difference between code that barely works and good code. The rockstar produces the former, good devs the second. Once you have a software big enough that it needs a team and not a single Dev, those concepts become essential. | |
| Apr 9, 2017 at 14:33 | comment | added | Ewan | ie would you complain 'flappy bird' didnt follow OOP when you were making god knows what in ad revenue per day | |
| Apr 9, 2017 at 14:32 | comment | added | Ewan | I think this theory falls into its own trap as it were. the rockstar by definition produces valuable products. Complaining about abstracts like grasping concepts making a 'good programmer' is just academic eliteism | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 0:18 | comment | added | T. Sar | @CodeGnome My understanding reading the OP questions is what I know by Rockstar Programmer - someone whose ego is far bigger than his skills that fail to work with others. I'm aware that other definitions may exist, but that's the one I'm going by! | |
| Apr 7, 2017 at 13:49 | comment | added | Todd A. Jacobs♦ | I don't want to downvote this yet (I'd like to give you a chance to revise), but "rockstar" and "ninja" are not at all the same thing as cowboy coding. It can also be used as shorthand for subject-matter expertise, or the 10x programmer effectiveness that some people have observed compared to the "average" programmer. The OP is really talking about loners, not coding superstars. As a result, I think your answer addresses the Y in an X/Y problem. | |
| Apr 7, 2017 at 12:06 | comment | added | nvoigt | I wish I could upvote multiple times. A "rockstar" programmer just isn't. If he were really that good, he would be able to work in a team. Being a good programmer includes writing code that can be used by others. | |
| Apr 5, 2017 at 18:48 | history | edited | T. Sar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Apr 5, 2017 at 18:15 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 5, 2017 at 18:30 | |||||
| Apr 5, 2017 at 18:04 | history | answered | T. Sar | CC BY-SA 3.0 |