[I posted an earlier version of this in comp.lang.dylan. If you read both
groups this is mostly the same post except it has my real email address]
I've been having some discussions about technical recruiting with my boss.
He's looking for ways to attract really top-flight developers to our region
(we're in Columbus, OH). I suggested that one way to do this would be to
promise people that a certain percentage of time could be devoted to
projects in a language that has advanced features but [ in the
comp.lang.dylan version of this message I said "marginal commercial
viability", but I wouldn't say that here for fear of Erik Naggum ] low
market share. He seemed quite receptive to the idea, and I'm wondering
what folks on comp.lang.lisp think about this. Would you relocate to work
for a company that promised you that, say, 20% of your time would be devoted
to Lisp projects, or projects in some other language that you love but have
trouble finding well-paid work in? The rest of the time would probably be
spent writing Java, doing high-level, language neutral design, or whatever
else that's profitable and you're good at.
It's not that we're cheap; our salaries our quite competitive with other
consulting firms in our market (most of our customers are Fortune 500 firms
or governments). It's just that finding really talented people in this part
of the country is always a challenge.
From: Andrew Cooke
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <881ff1$fvj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Some thoughts:
1. While I would certainly like such a job, have you considered
tele-working to broaden your catchment area? I work at home in one city
for a company in another and it works pretty well. (However, I started
by working in the office, so they already knew and trusted me when I
moved away.)
2. Your offer targets people I'd characterize as not desperately
interested in the career ladder - people more interested in doing what
they enjoy. In that case:
i - you're competing with many other parts of their lives that they
might value more highly (in my case, for example, my partner needs to
move from job to job as an academic; since a software engineer can get a
job anywhere, I move)
ii - you might also consider job-splitting. Two people, each doing half
the work for half the pay.
3 - with a couple of real jobs under my belt (post-academia) I would
select between different job offers according to the environment,
responsibility, and co-workers rather than salary. So if you're getting
people to interviews, but they're not accepting your offers, then maybe
you need to sort those things out.
4 - could you get involved with student projects at OSU (or similar)?
That would give you a chance to pick up bright graduates early (but then
you miss out on experience).
5 - you might end up getting a language loony. People who hold extreme
negative views about particular languages (hell, I even enjoy C) always
strike me as people that are probably going to be a pain in the backside
to work with...
Both 1 and 2.ii assume that the employee(s) is sufficiently motivated by
the working arrangements that they're willing to put in an extra bit of
effort to compensate for the inevitable time lost. In my case, I think
it works quite well (although I don't claim to be of sufficient calibre
for your job ;-)
Andrew
http://www.andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk/index.html
In article <····················@typhoon.columbus.rr.com>,
"Bruce Tobin" <······@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> [I posted an earlier version of this in comp.lang.dylan. If you read
both
> groups this is mostly the same post except it has my real email
address]
>
> I've been having some discussions about technical recruiting with my
boss.
> He's looking for ways to attract really top-flight developers to our
region
> (we're in Columbus, OH). I suggested that one way to do this would
be to
> promise people that a certain percentage of time could be devoted to
> projects in a language that has advanced features but [ in the
> comp.lang.dylan version of this message I said "marginal commercial
> viability", but I wouldn't say that here for fear of Erik Naggum ] low
> market share. He seemed quite receptive to the idea, and I'm
wondering
> what folks on comp.lang.lisp think about this. Would you relocate to
work
> for a company that promised you that, say, 20% of your time would be
devoted
> to Lisp projects, or projects in some other language that you love but
have
> trouble finding well-paid work in? The rest of the time would
probably be
> spent writing Java, doing high-level, language neutral design, or
whatever
> else that's profitable and you're good at.
>
> It's not that we're cheap; our salaries our quite competitive with
other
> consulting firms in our market (most of our customers are Fortune 500
firms
> or governments). It's just that finding really talented people in
this part
> of the country is always a challenge.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Fernando D. Mato Mira
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <38A4409E.3A350190@iname.com>
Bruce Tobin wrote:
> what folks on comp.lang.lisp think about this. Would you relocate to work
> for a company that promised you that, say, 20% of your time would be devoted
> to Lisp projects, or projects in some other language that you love but have
> trouble finding well-paid work in? The rest of the time would probably be
> spent writing Java, doing high-level, language neutral design, or whatever
> else that's profitable and you're good at.
200K$ for "C++ game developer". `lisping discount' TBD.
--
Fernando D. Mato Mira
Real-Time SW Eng & Networking
Advanced Systems Engineering Division
CSEM
Jaquet-Droz 1 email: matomira AT acm DOT org
CH-2007 Neuchatel tel: +41 (32) 720-5157
Switzerland FAX: +41 (32) 720-5720
www.csem.ch www.vrai.com ligwww.epfl.ch/matomira.html
From: Christopher J. Vogt
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <38A4473C.22CA0CC4@computer.org>
Bruce Tobin wrote:
>
> [I posted an earlier version of this in comp.lang.dylan. If you read both
> groups this is mostly the same post except it has my real email address]
>
> I've been having some discussions about technical recruiting with my boss.
> He's looking for ways to attract really top-flight developers to our region
> (we're in Columbus, OH).
> [ ... ]
>
Only slightly off topic, but here goes ...
Let me pose the question "Why must a person relocate?". I've been developing
software remotely for almost 10 years now. Previous to that, I spent time
both developing software and managing software development. It never ceases
to amaze me that there seems to be such a small percentage of companies/managers
who are willing to work with a software developer remotely. With high speed
internet access standard, phone calls of .05 a minute, cheap plane fares etc.
most software development can succeed in a corporally distributed environment.
I hear people talk about the difficulty in finding good people, but there are
a lot of good people who don't want to move, and it seems just plain silly to
me, given the state of the world, that physical proximity is such a hang up.
"Christopher J. Vogt" <····@computer.org> writes:
[plug alert!]
My employer, onShore Inc, is looking for Lisp talent[1], and while we
would prefer to hire people in Chicago, we are no strangers to remote
developers. I myself work remotely, the head of the software
development dept works remotely, and we've built most of our process
and style around distributed teams.
> Only slightly off topic, but here goes ...
>
> Let me pose the question "Why must a person relocate?". I've been
> developing software remotely for almost 10 years now. Previous to
> that, I spent time both developing software and managing software
> development.
I've been working remote for the last two years, and before that
everyone was in the same city, but worked from home a good percentage
of the time. Presently I work from Berkeley, California for a company
in Chicago, writing Lisp code all day.
> It never ceases to amaze me that there seems to be such a small
> percentage of companies/managers who are willing to work with a
> software developer remotely. With high speed internet access
> standard, phone calls of .05 a minute, cheap plane fares etc. most
> software development can succeed in a corporally distributed
> environment.
I don't think that it is the costs that make it difficult. I think
it's the risk of hiring remotely and getting some siphon, or more
likely someone who just doesn't fit in with the rest of your
organization. The social integration issues are what I would worry
about the most. Luckily when dealing with Lisp and Free Software most
of the time, like my employer, you are already dealing with a pool of
people who are used to cooperating and contributing remotely. Heck,
some of these people have almost 70% of their experience working on FS
projects remotely.
[1] Lisp talent
Haven't quite got a complete definition for this. I would just say
we're looking for a Lisp Hacker, in the classical sense.
--
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com>
Free Scheme/Lisp Software http://www.red-bean.com/~craig
"Hiding like thieves in the night from life, illusions of
oasis making you look twice. -- Mos Def and Talib Kweli
Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com> writes:
> I don't think that it is the costs that make it difficult. I think
> it's the risk of hiring remotely and getting some siphon, or more
> likely someone who just doesn't fit in with the rest of your
> organization.
I think it would be interesting to work out compromises: For instance,
relocating for 2 months at startup (for people with families,
this could e.g. be during the kids summer vacation) could be enough
for some people to build strong social relations with the colleagues
they will be working with. After that, regular but not so frequent
contact in person could be sufficient (e.g. monthly one-day meetings).
> The social integration issues are what I would worry
> about the most.
It's still amazing to see over and over again how eye-to-eye contact
can wipe away communication problems inside an organization that were
very persistent, not only on email but even on telephone!
--
(espen)
From: Andrew Cooke
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <88b29k$vqf$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <··············@wallace.nextel.no>,
Espen Vestre <·····@*do-not-spam-me*.vestre.net> wrote:
> Craig Brozefsky <·····@red-bean.com> writes:
[...]
> > The social integration issues are what I would worry
> > about the most.
>
> It's still amazing to see over and over again how eye-to-eye contact
> can wipe away communication problems inside an organization that were
> very persistent, not only on email but even on telephone!
In my experience of tele-working, you get to be quite good at sorting
out problems remotely. What you learn to avoid is not saying anything -
this works when people can see your body language, but isn't so good
down the phone. Instead you have to say things like "look, I feel
there's a problem" or "hey, I don't see why you are being like this" or
whatever. Once the problem is being discussed, it is easily resolved.
In other words, you have to stop worrying about appearing stupid when
you open your mouth .
(I can see that this may be easier for me than most - for example, I
have said the most stupid things on another usenet group recently about
Lisp (as it happens). While I feel mildly embarassed, I feel it was
probably worth it as it sorted out some bad misconceptions I had, but I
don't see other people posting unless they are pretty sure about what
they think.)
On the other hand, what I do miss is information on how the company is
progressing. I work for a small start-up and last week we had quite a
success (sorry, don't think I should be more explicit). Although I had
written a large chunk of the code involved, I didn't know, until I came
to the offices yesterday on my once-every-few-months visit, that it was
being used, or had turned out so well.
Because things are busy and exciting, people in the office don't have
the time to send me updates, and - understandably - forget that I can't
tell what is happening. But again, by talking about this and getting
people to realsie that it is a problem, I am sure we'll find a way round
it.
Andrew
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Robert Monfera
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <38A45AD1.94AC7E7B@fisec.com>
"Christopher J. Vogt" wrote:
[...]
> Let me pose the question "Why must a person relocate?".
[...]
Probably the type of development Bruce has in mind includes
consulting-type activities. In the environment I am working, often
there is a daily, almost constant personal interaction among client
people and developers - not only in the requirements analysis stage, but
throughout the project. Face-to-face discussions tend to work better
and a teamwork spirit more easily develops.
Admittedly, this constant need for communication is sometimes caused by
the lack of domain expertise on the developer's side, and the so-desired
teamwork is sometimes needed to hide less competent people and smooth
errors.
Maybe you are successful with remote development because you know what
to ask first so that you don't keep going back with the same questions
etc., but even then, it may largely depend on what type of work you are
doing.
Robert
From: Christopher J. Vogt
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <38A4A461.3754038F@computer.org>
Robert Monfera wrote:
>
> "Christopher J. Vogt" wrote:
> [...]
> > Let me pose the question "Why must a person relocate?".
> [...]
>
> Probably the type of development Bruce has in mind includes
> consulting-type activities. In the environment I am working, often
> there is a daily, almost constant personal interaction among client
> people and developers - not only in the requirements analysis stage, but
> throughout the project. Face-to-face discussions tend to work better
> and a teamwork spirit more easily develops.
I didn't mean to imply that *all* software development can be done remotely.
You are absolutely correct about situations requiring significant interaction
with customers. I do believe that lots, if not most, software development
does lend itself to remote development.
On 11 Feb 2000 16:42:53 +0000, Clemens Heitzinger
<········@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
> If that other language has advanced features and provides you with
> certain advantages compared to "main stream" languages, why wouldn't
> you want to use it 100% of your time (instead of only 20%)? Only
Indeed, Bruce's proposal looks to me (just speculating; since I'm not
talented I'm not qualified to comment :) more or less like a fringe benefit
like a reserved parking lot, a good canteen, using company equipment to
surf the Web and do online shopping during work hours, etc.
Paolo
--
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://cvs2.cons.org:8000/cmucl/doc/EncyCMUCLopedia/
From: Fernando Mato Mira
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <38A59C75.9F3045AC@iname.com>
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2000 16:42:53 +0000, Clemens Heitzinger
> <········@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>
> > If that other language has advanced features and provides you with
> > certain advantages compared to "main stream" languages, why wouldn't
> > you want to use it 100% of your time (instead of only 20%)? Only
>
> Indeed, Bruce's proposal looks to me (just speculating; since I'm not
> talented I'm not qualified to comment :) more or less like a fringe benefit
> like a reserved parking lot, a good canteen, using company equipment to
> surf the Web and do online shopping during work hours, etc.
Depends what those Lisp projects are. If it's equivalent to 7 extra vacation
weeks,
no need to appeal to language lust then. Sure some C++ (or whatever) folks
should be interested in trading 12 months of sun+cars in CA for
just 3 of sun+surf in HI, Oz, Canarias, Tarifa..
"Bruce Tobin" <······@columbus.rr.com> writes:
> what folks on comp.lang.lisp think about this. Would you relocate to work
> for a company that promised you that, say, 20% of your time would be devoted
> to Lisp projects, or projects in some other language that you love but have
> trouble finding well-paid work in? The rest of the time would probably be
> spent writing Java, doing high-level, language neutral design, or whatever
> else that's profitable and you're good at.
I would say that 20% is not enough, my experience with project work
indicates that anything with devoted time below 33% is highly
ineffective. If you said 33% AND you promised that the work you did
in lisp would get serious attention (you were given the chance
to prove that lisp is the extraordinary efficient tool we all know
it is), I would consider it an interesting offer (but don't count
on me, I'm using more than 50% of my time hacking lisp where I'm
now :-)).
--
(espen)
From: ··········@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <88kbip$hpq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <····················@typhoon.columbus.rr.com>,
"Bruce Tobin" <······@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> He's looking for ways to attract really top-flight developers to our
region
> (we're in Columbus, OH). I suggested that one way to do this would
be to
<snip>
> Would you relocate to
work
> for a company that promised you that, say, 20% of your time would be
devoted
> to Lisp projects, or projects in some other language that you love but
have
> trouble finding well-paid work in? The rest of the time would
probably be
> spent writing Java, doing high-level, language neutral design, or
whatever
> else that's profitable and you're good at.
>
My company is based in Cleveland OH, and have had the same problem. We
have had two effective ways to solve this though (at least, it must be
somewhat effective, as we've gotten some really good talent this way).
One is to offer a fun environment. We're a startup company, and we offer
that kind of environment -- kitchens stocked with food and beverages,
flexible schedules, even a pool table for breaks! All employees have
real offices, with doors. There is always the opportunity for somebody
(technical or not) to learn something new. Casual interactions are
encouraged. Indeed, the environment is pretty casual. These things are
all reasons I continue to work here.
The other is that we have some remote development offices -- one of
which happens to be located in Columbus. This allowed us to attract some
talent that absolutely could/would not relocate, but was a good fit for
the company. And for us, the remote efforts have worked quite well. (In
general, we have a lot of people who globetrot for various reasons, so
we are used to being spread out :-)
So IMHO, the language thing might attract a certain type of individual,
but the overall environment (dare I say corp. culture?) is what's most
important.
Jason
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Gary Chatters
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <88kl4o$ia7$1@saltmine.radix.net>
In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>, <··········@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <····················@typhoon.columbus.rr.com>,
> "Bruce Tobin" <······@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>> He's looking for ways to attract really top-flight developers to our
>region
[...]
>
>My company is based in Cleveland OH, and have had the same problem. We
>have had two effective ways to solve this though (at least, it must be
>somewhat effective, as we've gotten some really good talent this way).
>
>One is to offer a fun environment. We're a startup company, and we offer
>that kind of environment -- kitchens stocked with food and beverages,
>flexible schedules, even a pool table for breaks! All employees have
>real offices, with doors. There is always the opportunity for somebody
>(technical or not) to learn something new. Casual interactions are
>encouraged. Indeed, the environment is pretty casual. These things are
>all reasons I continue to work here.
Not just fun, but productive. Those top-flight developers want to
work where they can be productive and enjoy doing it. (Am I saying
something that should be obvious).
>
>The other is that we have some remote development offices -- one of
Remote development or tele-commuting can be useful. We had a bad
snow storm a couple of weeks ago, and I realized that I had loaded
up enough applications on my home PC that I could dial-in and have
a productive day from home. But in the kind of work I do it is
difficult to avoid going to an office for a lot of interaction
with other developers.
[...]
>
>So IMHO, the language thing might attract a certain type of individual,
>but the overall environment (dare I say corp. culture?) is what's most
>important.
This is an important point. Rather than worrying about a frill,
first ask if you got the basics right. It sounds like Jason's
employer is doing a lot of those basics right. Here is my list:
1. Kind of work being done.
2. Good management. Do they provide the support for doing good work.
3. Environment. Does every developer have a private office with
a door and a window? Do they have appropriate hardware and software
to do their work? Is it quiet? Is the Internet connection fast?
Be sure you've read and understand DeMarco and Lister's "Peopleware"
as well as the IBM Santa Teresa report.
My guess is that the "20% LISP" feature by itself would attract some
less experienced developers looking for a credential to put on their
resume. If your company doesn't have anything else to recommend it,
they'd soon be on their way.
My main complaint about Jason's post is that he didn't list
his employer's web page. It sounds like a place worth knowing about. :-)
Gary
From: Andrew Cooke
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <88obo2$39v$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <············@saltmine.radix.net>,
··@Radix.Net (Gary Chatters) wrote:
> Remote development or tele-commuting can be useful. We had a bad
> snow storm a couple of weeks ago, and I realized that I had loaded
> up enough applications on my home PC that I could dial-in and have
> a productive day from home. But in the kind of work I do it is
> difficult to avoid going to an office for a lot of interaction
> with other developers.
[Lisp *is* mentioned at the end of this post!]
For what it's worth... it is is possible to get round some apparent
need for interaction between developers by being more organized
(obviously what I say may depend a lot on the project). If the work is
split into separate units and you design before coding then
communication is needed mainly in the initial design. That can be
broken into several stages - an initial meeting involving everyone to
thrash out requirements (works best together); discussion and design
development by developers (can be done over the phone and by passing
around designs by email); a final meeting involving everyone to run
through the final design (works best together); then implementation (can
be done remotely).
In a small, busy company you can have projects running in parallel and a
single physical meeting can be used for both requirements on one project
and design review on another.
But it strikes me, writing this, that it is hardly the model I hear
espoused for Lisp development (I recall reading about implementing
quickly and revising often) (at work we use Java). Could it be that
Lisp is less suitable for tele-working than some other languages? (I,
personally, don't have enough experience decide this - so don't flame
me.. :-)
Andrew
http://www.andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Eugene Zaikonnikov
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <88om64$9gs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Andrew Cooke <······@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> But it strikes me, writing this, that it is hardly the model I hear
> espoused for Lisp development (I recall reading about implementing
> quickly and revising often) (at work we use Java). Could it be that
> Lisp is less suitable for tele-working than some other languages? (I,
> personally, don't have enough experience decide this - so don't flame
> me.. :-)
>
I think that the shorter revision cycle comes out of greater Lisp
flexibility, not because it is an intended design style. With Lisp you
spend less time debugging, which enables you to introduce modifications
more frequently.
If you work remotely over a logically complete subsystem/module, there
is no cardinal difference whatever language you use. At least for me,
remote development of a component using C++ was not giving any
advantage over Lisp.
--
Eugene.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Andrew Cooke
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <88pdjg$ngh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
If you have to travel to work at the end of each development cycle then
a shorter cycle is less attractive. But I suspect we're comparing
apples and oranges - I'm sure someone will say that you get more work
done in Lisp, so it's not really on to argue that Java/C++ is preferable
just because it takes longer to do the work....
Andrew
In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Eugene Zaikonnikov <······@cit.org.by> wrote:
> In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Andrew Cooke <······@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> [snip]
> > But it strikes me, writing this, that it is hardly the model I hear
> > espoused for Lisp development (I recall reading about implementing
> > quickly and revising often) (at work we use Java). Could it be that
> > Lisp is less suitable for tele-working than some other languages?
(I,
> > personally, don't have enough experience decide this - so don't
flame
> > me.. :-)
> >
> I think that the shorter revision cycle comes out of greater Lisp
> flexibility, not because it is an intended design style. With Lisp you
> spend less time debugging, which enables you to introduce
modifications
> more frequently.
> If you work remotely over a logically complete subsystem/module, there
> is no cardinal difference whatever language you use. At least for me,
> remote development of a component using C++ was not giving any
> advantage over Lisp.
>
> --
> Eugene.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Robert Munyer
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <88sn2p$gh8$3@eve.enteract.com>
In article <············@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Andrew Cooke <······@andrewcooke.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
> In a small, busy company you can have projects running in parallel
> and a single physical meeting can be used for both requirements
> on one project and design review on another.
>
> But it strikes me, writing this, that it is hardly the model I
> hear espoused for Lisp development (I recall reading about
> implementing quickly and revising often) (at work we use Java).
> Could it be that Lisp is less suitable for tele-working than some
> other languages?
I wouldn't say that. You can still benefit from using fast
exploratory programming at the per-programmer level, even if
circumstances prevent you from using it at the per-group level.
-- Robert Munyer <······@mcs.com>
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3ya8eav7g.fsf@cley.com>
* Robert Munyer wrote:
[Lisp being unsuitable for distributed working because typical lisp
development styles stress communication by encouraging very
exploratory programming]
> I wouldn't say that. You can still benefit from using fast
> exploratory programming at the per-programmer level, even if
> circumstances prevent you from using it at the per-group level.
I don't think that doing distributed development necessarily rules out
exploratory programming. You definitely need to work hard at the
communication bit but I certainly think that email / network
accessible live source repositories can work reasonably well. In fact
I often find they work better than formal meetings (though probably
worse than the standard `walking into someone's office and drawing on
the whiteboard' technique).
--tim
Andrew Cooke wrote:
>
>
> But it strikes me, writing this, that it is hardly the model I hear
> espoused for Lisp development (I recall reading about implementing
> quickly and revising often) (at work we use Java). Could it be that
> Lisp is less suitable for tele-working than some other languages?
>
I would argue that Lisp is *more* suitable for tele-work, because:
* individuals can be more productive, so teams can be smaller, reducing
the need for intra-team communication.
* data structures and APIs tend to be more uniform due to the facilities
in the language, again reducing the communication burden. Avoiding
negotiation on memory management alone is worth a *lot* relative to
C/C++.
I've done complete projects in Lisp (Interlisp-D / Xerox Common Lisp,
specifically) with people in three different US time zones, plus Japan,
with little face-to-face interaction - everything was done via e-mail.
From: ··········@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Technical recruiting via appeal to language lust.
Date:
Message-ID: <88rhrl$452$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
In article <············@saltmine.radix.net>,
··@Radix.Net (Gary Chatters) wrote:
> Not just fun, but productive. Those top-flight developers want to
> work where they can be productive and enjoy doing it. (Am I saying
> something that should be obvious).
Yes, and yes :-)
> Remote development or tele-commuting can be useful. We had a bad
> snow storm a couple of weeks ago, and I realized that I had loaded
> up enough applications on my home PC that I could dial-in and have
> a productive day from home. But in the kind of work I do it is
> difficult to avoid going to an office for a lot of interaction
> with other developers.
Good point, again, I can relate to that.
> My main complaint about Jason's post is that he didn't list
> his employer's web page. It sounds like a place worth knowing about.
:-)
>
> Gary
Okay, Gary, since you kind of asked ;-)
www.netgenics.com
Jason
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.