The question of whether engineering managers should still code is complex and depends heavily on context. While coding can offer benefits like maintaining technical skills, understanding team challenges, and contributing to urgent projects, it also carries risks. Managers might get bogged down in coding tasks, neglecting their primary responsibilities of team leadership, mentorship, and strategic planning. Ultimately, the decision hinges on factors like team size, company culture, the manager's individual skills and preferences, and the specific needs of the project. Striking a balance is crucial – staying technically involved without sacrificing management duties leads to the most effective leadership.
The article discusses how Elon Musk's ambitious, fast-paced ventures like SpaceX and Tesla, particularly his integration of Dogecoin into these projects, are attracting a wave of young, often inexperienced engineers. While these engineers bring fresh perspectives and a willingness to tackle challenging projects, their lack of experience and the rapid development cycles raise concerns about potential oversight and the long-term stability of these endeavors, particularly regarding Dogecoin's viability as a legitimate currency. The article highlights the potential risks associated with relying on a less experienced workforce driven by a strong belief in Musk's vision, contrasting it with the more traditional, regulated approaches of established institutions.
Hacker News commenters discuss the Wired article about young engineers working on Dogecoin. Several express skepticism that inexperienced engineers are truly "aiding" Dogecoin, pointing out that its core code is largely based on Bitcoin and hasn't seen significant development. Some argue that Musk's focus on youth and inexperience reflects a broader Silicon Valley trend of undervaluing experience and institutional knowledge. Others suggest that the young engineers are likely working on peripheral projects, not core protocol development, and some defend Musk's approach as promoting innovation and fresh perspectives. A few comments also highlight the speculative and meme-driven nature of Dogecoin, questioning its long-term viability regardless of the engineers' experience levels.
Focusing solely on closing Jira tickets gives a false sense of productivity. True impact comes from solving user problems and delivering valuable outcomes, not just completing tasks. While execution and shipping are important, prioritizing velocity over value leads to busywork and features nobody wants. Real product success requires understanding user needs, strategically choosing what to build, and measuring impact based on outcomes, not output. "Crushing Jira tickets" is a superficial performance that might impress some, but ultimately fails to move the needle on what truly matters.
HN commenters largely agreed with the article's premise that focusing on closing Jira tickets doesn't necessarily translate to meaningful impact. Several shared anecdotes of experiencing or witnessing this "Jira treadmill" in their own workplaces, leading to busywork and a lack of focus on actual product improvement. Some questioned the framing of Jira as inherently bad, suggesting that the tool itself isn't the problem, but rather how it's used and the metrics derived from it. A few commenters offered alternative metrics and strategies for measuring impact, such as focusing on customer satisfaction, business outcomes, or demonstrable value delivered. There was also discussion around the importance of clear communication and alignment between teams on what constitutes valuable work, and the role of management in setting those expectations.
Interruptions significantly hinder software engineers, especially during cognitively demanding tasks like programming and debugging. The impact isn't just the time lost to the interruption itself, but also the time required to regain focus and context, which can take substantial time depending on the task's complexity. While interruptions are sometimes unavoidable, minimizing them, especially during deep work periods, can drastically improve developer productivity and code quality. Effective strategies include blocking off focused time, using asynchronous communication methods, and batching similar tasks together.
HN commenters generally agree with the article's premise that interruptions are detrimental to developer productivity, particularly for complex tasks. Some share personal anecdotes and strategies for mitigating interruptions, like using the Pomodoro Technique or blocking off focus time. A few suggest that the study's methodology might be flawed due to its small sample size and reliance on self-reporting. Others point out that certain types of interruptions, like urgent bug fixes, are unavoidable and sometimes even beneficial for breaking through mental blocks. A compelling thread discusses the role of company culture in minimizing disruptions, emphasizing the importance of asynchronous communication and respect for deep work. Some argue that the "maker's schedule" isn't universally applicable and that some developers thrive in more interrupt-driven environments.
Summary of Comments ( 91 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43256113
HN commenters largely agree that the question of whether managers should code isn't binary. Many argue that context matters significantly, depending on company size, team maturity, and the manager's individual strengths. Some believe coding helps managers stay connected to the technical challenges their teams face, fostering better empathy and decision-making. Others contend that focusing on management tasks, like mentoring and removing roadblocks, offers more value as a team grows. Several commenters stressed the importance of delegation and empowering team members, rather than a manager trying to do everything. A few pointed out the risk of managers becoming bottlenecks if they remain deeply involved in coding, while others suggested allocating dedicated coding time for managers to stay sharp and contribute technically. There's a general consensus that strong technical skills remain valuable for managers, even if they're not writing production code daily.
The Hacker News post "Should managers still code?" generated a significant discussion with diverse viewpoints. Many commenters agreed that the question itself is too simplistic and depends heavily on context, such as company size, team maturity, individual skills, and the specific industry.
Several compelling comments highlighted the nuances of the situation. One commenter argued that coding ability remains crucial for managers to effectively mentor and guide their teams, especially in highly technical fields. They emphasized that understanding the challenges faced by their team, offering practical advice, and accurately estimating timelines requires firsthand experience with the codebase.
Another compelling comment pointed out the distinction between "coding" and "staying technical." They suggested that while managers might not need to write production code regularly, they should still maintain a deep understanding of the underlying technologies, architectural decisions, and system design. This allows them to make informed strategic choices and effectively communicate with engineers and stakeholders.
The trade-offs between management responsibilities and coding time were also a recurring theme. Some commenters shared personal anecdotes about how they struggled to balance both, leading to either neglecting their management duties or falling behind on technical skills. They suggested that dedicating specific time slots for coding or focusing on small, non-critical tasks could help maintain technical proficiency without sacrificing management responsibilities.
Some argued that as a manager progresses in their career, their focus should shift from individual contributions to empowering their team. They emphasized the importance of delegation, mentorship, and creating a supportive environment where engineers can thrive. In this view, coding becomes less important than leadership skills, communication, and strategic thinking.
The discussion also touched on the potential downsides of managers coding. One commenter cautioned against managers becoming bottlenecks or inadvertently micromanaging their teams by taking on coding tasks that could be delegated to team members. They stressed the importance of clear boundaries and effective task allocation.
Finally, some commenters proposed alternative solutions, such as rotating technical leadership roles within the team or creating dedicated "architect" positions for individuals who want to remain deeply involved in the technical aspects of the project without taking on full management responsibilities.
Overall, the Hacker News comments presented a balanced perspective on the question of whether managers should code, emphasizing the importance of context, trade-offs, and the evolving nature of the role as managers progress in their careers.