The psychology of computer programmers is interesting stuff. The classic view of a programmer is someone who sits around creating all day like an artist or writer. It’s a creative job, trying to be the next Bill Gates. The reality is that the most spend a significant amount of their time diagnosing problems and debugging. That includes analyzing bug reports, tracing bugs, finding solutions, implementing, and testing. In practice this part is much more detective than artist.
After years of observation, I’ve come to the conclusion that most good programmers bare a striking resemblance to both Dr. House, and Sherlock Holmes (whom the Dr. House the character is partly based upon).
Overlapping Traits
- Reluctance to accept cases they don’t find interesting – Both Dr. House and Sherlock Holmes hate cases that they aren’t interested in. Programmers always gravitate towards bugs that interest them, and shun bugs that don’t. Very few will even attempt to dispute this.
- Otherwise lazy – When not solving something that interests them, they are what most would call lazy.
- “Rubik’s complex” – Obsession with puzzles.
- Reliance on a related science – Dr. House and Sherlock Holmes rely heavily on Psychology. Programmers gravitate towards user experience which Wikipedia defines as incorporating “psychology, anthropology, computer science, graphic design, industrial design and cognitive science”. Coincidence?
- Substance dependence – Dr. House prefers Vicodin, Morphine and Sherlock Holmes went for Cocaine, Morphine. For programmers it’s often an extraordinary dependency on caffeine that keeps them going.
- Overconfidence to the point of arrogance – I don’t think any further explanation is necessary. Programmers are as arrogant and defensive on their work as Dr. House and Sherlock Holmes are about their diagnosis/solution.
- Introvert – Both Dr. House and Sherlock Holmes are introverts. So are many/most programmers.
- Strong deductive reasoning skills – The best programmers are the ones who can analyze a bug report and using knowledge of the application and related technologies can diagnose the problem with accuracy that surprises even those with many years more experience.
- Use of alternate names – Holmes and Dr. House call people by their last names. Programmers have this habit of using network names, usernames, IRC nicknames.
- Showmanship for their skills – Dr. House diagnosed a waiting room full of patients in about a minute with surprising accuracy without meeting with each patient. Sherlock Holmes has a love for elaborate traps to show off. Programmers love to show off. That’s why so many blog. Accomplishments are the rare things they willingly document.
Slightly higher occurrence of the following personality traits may apply: “moody”, “bitter”, “antagonistic”, “misanthropic”, “cynical” “grumpy”, “maverick” and a “curmudgeon”.
Sherlock Holmes
The most distinct Holmes trait is that he refused guessing or theorizing before having the necessary clues or data to reach a conclusion and solve the case.
Programmers who fall in the Holmes party refuse to make guesses without seeing some evidence and immediately tries to reproduce the bug and starts tracing to gather data. Once there is a mountain of data they start to deduce the problem and the solution. Once they reach a conclusion they will break it down into a very concise deductive argument.
Pipe smoking is optional.
Dr. House
The most distinct part of the House approach is the willingness to make an educated guess based on limited information.
Programmers who fall in the House party are willing to make guesses early on and immediately start debugging in very calculated parts of their code base. As they come to realizations and learn new information they are willing to adjust or completely abandon their former approach and go with a new hunch.
They often find themselves soliciting ideas from others and using good ones however they almost enjoy shooting down ideas as invalid based on their skills and knowledge.
Conclusion
I’m pretty sure there is no “better” approach. It’s just two different ways of going after a problem. It’s completely possible to be a hybrid. I think it’s more of a spectrum of personality and technique.