Well, I may not have made it clear, but he was, in fact, a very smart guy and a very good coder (with a few caveats). He just mistakenly thought that any kind of rule someone threw at him, like rules about testing code, our team processes, and code conventions (I didn't go into it, but he decided that he wanted to change all our code from CamelCase to using_underscores) was stupid, and clearly the product of an inferior mind. He had never worked on a project involving more than a handful of people before, and just couldn't seem to believe that there was aything more to being a programmer than just the programming.
in reply to Re^2: OT: Why Hackers dont do well in Corporate World
in thread OT: Why Hackers dont do well in Corporate World
I brought up the story in this thread because it seems to be a common misunderstanding that this thread is promoting: "If you're a good programmer, but people give you crap about aspects of your work other than programming, then they're jerks/idiots." In general, this thread (with some exceptions) consists of little vignettes demonstrating this concept from the point of view of the poor, put-upon hacker, who is unhappy with how his obviously-superior work is received by his bosses or by those other (i.e. not the antisocial, but self-proclaimedly super-humanly talented hacker) programmers at his job.
Point being: this is a fairly one-sided round of complaints, and I wanted to give the other side. It's an easy thing to think that if ones work is ill-received, that it must be because the people judging the work are beneath ones consideration. It's a much harder thing to think that maybe there is some merit to the criticisms and try to improve yourself. It's also a much more useful, productive, and mature thing to do.
Not an editor command: Wq