The general context is hiring managers under-/dis-valuing writing ability for technical people, and Patrick countering that a significant part of the value of their team is him , who is known for his writing.
This is shocking to me, as I highly value good communication skills, and I assumed my industry did as well. For example, I think the main reason Rust is as popular today is thanks to Carol Nichols' & Steve Klabnik's excellent writing, and Steve's unrelenting advocacy (be it talks, blog posts, or online comments). The impact of a technology is nothing if it can't be communicated well.
I've been working in improving my technical writing, contributing significantly to our team's docs, and I have more respect for my colleagues who do the same.
Have other people experienced this scorn for writing that Dan Luu refers to?
> Patrick countering that a significant part of the value of their team is him , who is known for his writing.
Just to clarify, I don't think he's saying that 7% of their value is him specifically, I think he's saying that 7% of Stripe's engineers are there because of his blog. He's replying to Dan Luu's note about recruiting fees and how valuable a popular blog can be.
Have other people experienced this scorn for writing that Dan Luu refers to?
Sort of. At a point >10 years into my career I had a junior dev ask me to remove my method comments during code review because they might become out of date some day.
I personally downplay any writing/organizational skills I have, as it always seems to count against or be used against me. It means you get stuck with non-technical work/documentation (which everyone wants but nobody values), are given errands to review copy for the product manager.
With no leadership aspirations, that is career incoherent work for me.
Maybe, though it can also be a way of learning. You crystalize & organize your thoughts with words. Regardless, the aphorism is old, tired and just plain wrong. Both writing and teaching are amazingly valuable skills.
thanks for morally correcting me (and to the others who downvoted), however as the comment I replied to asked if anyone had ever observed that kind of contempt for learning in other contexts it would be a reasonable interpretation that I was providing an example I had observed. There was nothing in the comment that should have caused anyone to think I was a true believer in the aphorism.
> There was nothing in the comment that should have caused anyone to think I was a true believer in the aphorism.
There was nothing in the comment to indicate that you were not, either. It wasn't in quotes. Especially here, people take what's written at face value. I guess that's a communication lesson.
> There was nothing in the comment that should have caused anyone to think I was a true believer in the aphorism.
Even so, saying "Writing is a form of teaching." needs more justification, especially in this context. Leaving that half-connected and confusing invites a downvote or two.
Alright, if you'd rather insult me than put any elaboration onto how "writing is a form of teaching", that's your prerogative.
To be clear, it's easy to see how your post connects to the post you're replying to. The problem is that internally, your post is not fleshed out at all, and it's not clear how you came to the conclusion that writing and teaching should be interchanged in this context.
This is shocking to me, as I highly value good communication skills, and I assumed my industry did as well. For example, I think the main reason Rust is as popular today is thanks to Carol Nichols' & Steve Klabnik's excellent writing, and Steve's unrelenting advocacy (be it talks, blog posts, or online comments). The impact of a technology is nothing if it can't be communicated well.
I've been working in improving my technical writing, contributing significantly to our team's docs, and I have more respect for my colleagues who do the same.
Have other people experienced this scorn for writing that Dan Luu refers to?