Comments on: The Economics Of Productivity Tools In Software Development http://mentalpandiculation.com/2009/11/the-economics-of-productivity-tools-in-software-development/ One Man's Attempt To Find Elegant Code Through Big Words Tue, 28 Jun 2011 01:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Niklaus Wirth's Ghost http://mentalpandiculation.com/2009/11/the-economics-of-productivity-tools-in-software-development/comment-page-1/#comment-89 Niklaus Wirth's Ghost Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:43:51 +0000 http://mentalpandiculation.com/?p=194#comment-89 You ought to get a blog instead of wasting time in my comment section. :-) If they are all *just* tools, why do we expect our employers to provide Visual Studio but not Resharper? Microsoft Office but not UltraEdit? A computer but not 2 extra monitors? I think there is a clear distinction in the tools we are discussing. Any employer who hired a Microsoft developer without providing Visual Studio would find themselves without employees. As far as I know, we're talking about tools that are far outside the realm of required but that increase productivity. I'm not aware of mechanics having to buy their own tools. Are the tools specific to particular kinds of cars? Are the mechanics salaried employees? It's an interesting example I'll have to think about though my initial reaction is that it's an exception that proves the rule. I never said there is a financial burden with no benefit. I said that the benefits are non-financial. My entire (poorly argued) argument is that developers who have to buy their own tools (specifically productivity tools) are taking on financial risk with no short or medium term financial return while the employer is doing the exact opposite, a situation that I find problematic since it's the employer who should be investing in the future more than the employee. After all, an employee can just go get another job. An employer can't just go get another business. It's nice to dream about everyone following their passion but in reality, that's not feasible. Maybe I'm a cynic but we're a long ways away from everyone being able to choose what they love to do. Like Judge Smails said "The world needs ditch diggers too." This is probably an entire blog post but I wrote some basic thoughts on it when Jay Fields said 50% of all developers should quit and find a new career. I think your stance is similar to that. It's dismissive of all the reasons someone might choose or have to have a job. I'm sure passion is nice but it isn't sufficient to pay the bills. Looks like I need to get a blog too. You ought to get a blog instead of wasting time in my comment section. :-)

If they are all *just* tools, why do we expect our employers to provide Visual Studio but not Resharper? Microsoft Office but not UltraEdit? A computer but not 2 extra monitors? I think there is a clear distinction in the tools we are discussing. Any employer who hired a Microsoft developer without providing Visual Studio would find themselves without employees. As far as I know, we’re talking about tools that are far outside the realm of required but that increase productivity.

I’m not aware of mechanics having to buy their own tools. Are the tools specific to particular kinds of cars? Are the mechanics salaried employees? It’s an interesting example I’ll have to think about though my initial reaction is that it’s an exception that proves the rule.

I never said there is a financial burden with no benefit. I said that the benefits are non-financial. My entire (poorly argued) argument is that developers who have to buy their own tools (specifically productivity tools) are taking on financial risk with no short or medium term financial return while the employer is doing the exact opposite, a situation that I find problematic since it’s the employer who should be investing in the future more than the employee. After all, an employee can just go get another job. An employer can’t just go get another business.

It’s nice to dream about everyone following their passion but in reality, that’s not feasible. Maybe I’m a cynic but we’re a long ways away from everyone being able to choose what they love to do. Like Judge Smails said “The world needs ditch diggers too.” This is probably an entire blog post but I wrote some basic thoughts on it when Jay Fields said 50% of all developers should quit and find a new career. I think your stance is similar to that. It’s dismissive of all the reasons someone might choose or have to have a job. I’m sure passion is nice but it isn’t sufficient to pay the bills.

Looks like I need to get a blog too.

]]> By: David O'Hara http://mentalpandiculation.com/2009/11/the-economics-of-productivity-tools-in-software-development/comment-page-1/#comment-86 David O'Hara Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:24:08 +0000 http://mentalpandiculation.com/?p=194#comment-86 Ok, so a couple of points... I would argue that the use of the term "productivity tool" is a crutch in this argument. They are all tools that we use to get the job done. Period. To give you a comparison, a mechanic doesn't call an impact driver a "productivity tool" although, by the definition we're using, that's exactly what it is. He could certainly get the job done without it but it's the right tool for the job and so he gets one. Which brings me to my next point, a mechanic is an excellent example of a non-contractor who is required to provide their own tools. My brother had to drop several thousands of dollars when he joined Volkswagen just to get his toolbox up to par and he continues to add to it on a regular basis. It's the cost of being employed. He will also take those tools with him when he leaves which is on par with us taking our tools with us when we leave so I don't think you can say there is a financial burden with no benefit. You bought the tool, it's yours and you got what you paid for. I'm on the fence about the whole productivity as the only benefit thing as well. If you can get your job done and go home on time, that's not just productivity. If you don't have to work on Saturday to figure out why the Friday deploy has hosed the production server, that's not just productivity. Yes, my assumption is that these tools will lead to better code, less defects, etc. but I don't know that it's very far off. I know that using the right box end wrench means I'm less likely to strip the nut or beat up my knuckles so that might translate...or I might have just taken the analogy too far. Like we discussed, my initial tweet was targeted at the whiners and I stand by that. However since we've been chatting and I've been pondering, I feel that you've talked me into my new position of "It's your job and you should be willing to throw down". If you're not, what are you doing here? Go find something you ARE passionate enough about that you would be willing to pay for it and do that. That said, I can't agree enough with you regarding a company that isn't willing to pay for tools or that would be so parasitic as to knowingly benefit from pushing the costs off on to employees - but that's a whole different discussion. Ok, so a couple of points…
I would argue that the use of the term “productivity tool” is a crutch in this argument. They are all tools that we use to get the job done. Period. To give you a comparison, a mechanic doesn’t call an impact driver a “productivity tool” although, by the definition we’re using, that’s exactly what it is. He could certainly get the job done without it but it’s the right tool for the job and so he gets one.

Which brings me to my next point, a mechanic is an excellent example of a non-contractor who is required to provide their own tools. My brother had to drop several thousands of dollars when he joined Volkswagen just to get his toolbox up to par and he continues to add to it on a regular basis. It’s the cost of being employed. He will also take those tools with him when he leaves which is on par with us taking our tools with us when we leave so I don’t think you can say there is a financial burden with no benefit. You bought the tool, it’s yours and you got what you paid for. I’m on the fence about the whole productivity as the only benefit thing as well. If you can get your job done and go home on time, that’s not just productivity. If you don’t have to work on Saturday to figure out why the Friday deploy has hosed the production server, that’s not just productivity. Yes, my assumption is that these tools will lead to better code, less defects, etc. but I don’t know that it’s very far off. I know that using the right box end wrench means I’m less likely to strip the nut or beat up my knuckles so that might translate…or I might have just taken the analogy too far.

Like we discussed, my initial tweet was targeted at the whiners and I stand by that. However since we’ve been chatting and I’ve been pondering, I feel that you’ve talked me into my new position of “It’s your job and you should be willing to throw down”. If you’re not, what are you doing here? Go find something you ARE passionate enough about that you would be willing to pay for it and do that. That said, I can’t agree enough with you regarding a company that isn’t willing to pay for tools or that would be so parasitic as to knowingly benefit from pushing the costs off on to employees – but that’s a whole different discussion.

]]>