Long form is good when it helps the story and helps the story.
The problem I had with this story, besides that I don't think I buy the model of reality it's proposing, is that it doesn't get to the meat(The Expert Beginner) until past the halfway mark. The first 7 minutes wasn't particularly interesting or critical to someone understanding the subject. The bowling analogy was long and not necessary to explain a very straight forward idea.
From what I can tell, a "low hanging fruit" analogy would have been more apt and would have taken a short paragraph to preface the main content.
That aside, there are some reasons I have to not agree with the article.
Not to discredit the author's experience but, in my experience, I just haven't met anyone who believes they have reached expert status but is still a beginner. Pretty much every programmer I've met has some degree of imposter syndrome and, while most have some opinions about what makes "good code", I don't find it common that programmers have a strong belief in their own expertise. Totally subjective, I know, but that's one way in which the story just doesn't reflect my view of reality.
> They come to the conclusion that they’ve quickly reached Expert status and there’s nowhere left to go.
I just don't think I've met any programmer who thinks there's nowhere left to go once they've achieved a perceived status.
Moreover, the end of the story seems to conclude that "expert beginners" are the problem, as opposed to the symptom, although the author does recognize that somewhat via the "dead sea" effect. Looking at this from an economics perspective, the so-called expert beginners are the way they are because they're not incentivized to do better. If there was economic and internal political pressure for them to achieve supposedly greater things, they'd be more likely to do so. Having worked for some "dead sea" companies, I have to wonder why any beginner would want to effectively work harder for a company that pays an intermediate salary, makes advancement difficult, and does not reward excellence. The choice to dick around, not spend energy improving, maintaining the appearance of experthood having "worked on that tool" or having been around the longest, while collecting a reliable paycheck, is the most sensible one for those who don't live and breathe code.
The article comes from the angle of someone who lives and breathes code, blaming the programmers who aren't true believers, and leaves out the fact that the supposedly better programmers don't stick around to fix these situations.
My point is that you could turn the article around on itself to say that the "dead sea" problem, and the problem of "expert beginners" lingering at companies, is at least significantly caused by actual expert programmers.
The problem I had with this story, besides that I don't think I buy the model of reality it's proposing, is that it doesn't get to the meat(The Expert Beginner) until past the halfway mark. The first 7 minutes wasn't particularly interesting or critical to someone understanding the subject. The bowling analogy was long and not necessary to explain a very straight forward idea.
From what I can tell, a "low hanging fruit" analogy would have been more apt and would have taken a short paragraph to preface the main content.
That aside, there are some reasons I have to not agree with the article.
Not to discredit the author's experience but, in my experience, I just haven't met anyone who believes they have reached expert status but is still a beginner. Pretty much every programmer I've met has some degree of imposter syndrome and, while most have some opinions about what makes "good code", I don't find it common that programmers have a strong belief in their own expertise. Totally subjective, I know, but that's one way in which the story just doesn't reflect my view of reality.
> They come to the conclusion that they’ve quickly reached Expert status and there’s nowhere left to go.
I just don't think I've met any programmer who thinks there's nowhere left to go once they've achieved a perceived status.
Moreover, the end of the story seems to conclude that "expert beginners" are the problem, as opposed to the symptom, although the author does recognize that somewhat via the "dead sea" effect. Looking at this from an economics perspective, the so-called expert beginners are the way they are because they're not incentivized to do better. If there was economic and internal political pressure for them to achieve supposedly greater things, they'd be more likely to do so. Having worked for some "dead sea" companies, I have to wonder why any beginner would want to effectively work harder for a company that pays an intermediate salary, makes advancement difficult, and does not reward excellence. The choice to dick around, not spend energy improving, maintaining the appearance of experthood having "worked on that tool" or having been around the longest, while collecting a reliable paycheck, is the most sensible one for those who don't live and breathe code.
The article comes from the angle of someone who lives and breathes code, blaming the programmers who aren't true believers, and leaves out the fact that the supposedly better programmers don't stick around to fix these situations.
My point is that you could turn the article around on itself to say that the "dead sea" problem, and the problem of "expert beginners" lingering at companies, is at least significantly caused by actual expert programmers.