As soon as I say such words, people will criticize a lot of comments: You are wrong, you are wrong, you are completely wrong. Good programmers need to have the skills to communicate and they need to have the ability to work with others. You are not the only one in the team! In fact, people will say: it is best to compromise on the technical requirements so that you can find people who can better adapt to corporate culture.
It would be more appropriate for you to say this: I can’t find someone who is technically good and can adapt to corporate culture, so I just wait and find it all the time.
There are very few companies that dare to be so luxurious. Maybe Google can do this. Even companies like Google have always been in a state of "despair of recruiting programmers." If you decide to wait, I can foresee that every time you get a programmer, you will have to wait for a long time, and the business will collapse due to the lack of programmers.
So, which one is better?
Let's consider those middle- or inferior programmers who are amiable and hard-working. Their programs are not well written - their programs don't work as they want, and even if they do it, it's a bad program and it's hard to maintain. They struggle to explore basic functions, and they cannot solve complex problems. But they can keep up with the team, and the project progress is updated every day, and you can see that they are struggling in their seats every day. Everything is good and your manager will be happy because the entire team looks smoothly moving forward.
When the release date has to be postponed and there are so many product bugs that cannot be used, people will lament that the software is difficult to make, so they invest more amiable and mediocre programmers to fix the problem. I think everyone knows the result of the matter.
For programmers, there are not many things to solve with kindness. A friendly mediocre programmer can become a business analyst, a technical salesperson, or other positions that can use his kindness and a little technical knowledge to work. They will be very satisfied with such a job, but this is all about tea party work, not finding effective ways to make good software.
Another option is to find a programmer who can make good programs, but may not be good at getting along with others, or be always late, or otherwise. He can develop software that works according to the design, and he can abstract complex problems into simple ones. The software is very useful and maintainable, and you can modify it as required at any time.
The world is real, there are so many ways that we can mess things up, but at least we have a chance. People can leave a good impression on people. The team can be built well. It's great that employees work for you for a long time. A large number of businesses did not work according to the scheduled design, but they were still successful, which was good. But there will definitely be no great software that will be implemented under mediocre programmers. .
The evidence is in the code. That's all.
It would be more appropriate for you to say this: I can’t find someone who is technically good and can adapt to corporate culture, so I just wait and find it all the time.
There are very few companies that dare to be so luxurious. Maybe Google can do this. Even companies like Google have always been in a state of "despair of recruiting programmers." If you decide to wait, I can foresee that every time you get a programmer, you will have to wait for a long time, and the business will collapse due to the lack of programmers.
So, which one is better?
Let's consider those middle- or inferior programmers who are amiable and hard-working. Their programs are not well written - their programs don't work as they want, and even if they do it, it's a bad program and it's hard to maintain. They struggle to explore basic functions, and they cannot solve complex problems. But they can keep up with the team, and the project progress is updated every day, and you can see that they are struggling in their seats every day. Everything is good and your manager will be happy because the entire team looks smoothly moving forward.
When the release date has to be postponed and there are so many product bugs that cannot be used, people will lament that the software is difficult to make, so they invest more amiable and mediocre programmers to fix the problem. I think everyone knows the result of the matter.
For programmers, there are not many things to solve with kindness. A friendly mediocre programmer can become a business analyst, a technical salesperson, or other positions that can use his kindness and a little technical knowledge to work. They will be very satisfied with such a job, but this is all about tea party work, not finding effective ways to make good software.
Another option is to find a programmer who can make good programs, but may not be good at getting along with others, or be always late, or otherwise. He can develop software that works according to the design, and he can abstract complex problems into simple ones. The software is very useful and maintainable, and you can modify it as required at any time.
The world is real, there are so many ways that we can mess things up, but at least we have a chance. People can leave a good impression on people. The team can be built well. It's great that employees work for you for a long time. A large number of businesses did not work according to the scheduled design, but they were still successful, which was good. But there will definitely be no great software that will be implemented under mediocre programmers. .
The evidence is in the code. That's all.