Skip to main content

Programmers are people

Something that annoyed me for many years now is how the games industry (well, software development community in general) treat individual developers as "resources" in a project schedule. It doesn't just sound awful and is a direct insult to the profession, it's also plain wrong, stupid and counter-productive.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking.. but yes I would argue programming is a creative line of work, you are designing and building something. Do you think a car manufacturer talks about "designer resources" when coming up with a new model? Does a TV show producer have "screenplay writing resources" (well maybe they do, I don't have a clue). Of course it matters who designs and builds something. You can throw hundreds of bad composers on a soundtrack, but it still sounds horrible.

How many weeks does task X take to complete? The answer should always be the same - it depends on who does it. There are no man-hours, man-weeks or man-months in this industry. Building software is not like building a house. There are always tons of vastly different solutions to a given task. There might even be a tool out there that already solved the problem. Maybe the task itself is an effect of a previous design mistake?

When loading boxes of oranges a good worker might be twice as fast a bad worker. An awesome worker might be three times faster, but that's really pushing it. In software a highly motivated, awesome programmer can easily replace a whole room full of mediocre (not Mediocre!) programmers and still produce way better results, fewer errors, more maintainable code at a fraction of the cost.

Finding such talented programmers is of course very hard, but I wouldn't say they are quite as rare as most people think - keeping an awesome programmer motivated is the bigger challenge. The magic only happens when a great programmer is given freedom and responsibility. Unfortunately very few people seem to have realized this - the typical scenario being a big company headhunting some of the best programmers in the world and pay them tons of money to sit in a cubicle and munch dull scrum tasks off a backlog. Not so awesome anymore? Seriously, what did you expect? If you treat great programmers as generic programming resources they will become just that.


  1. Agreed. I consider it my own responsibility to find the job with the right mix of freedom, responsibility, salary etc. Luckily there are plenty of opportunities, especially in bigger companies that can afford a r&d or skunkworks style environment.

  2. Agreed, very true.

    Yet at times it seems that absent a steady paycheck some of us have to tolerate this. Hence why what you do give us programmers hope.

    1. Totally agree with this essay. Great programmers who work well with others are valuable for cost and schedule effectiveness, reliable quality deliverables, and competitive positioning and solutions. This rewards shareholders as well as executive careers. Great programmers with great experience are fabulous at figuring out different approaches to difficult problems (assuming a project hasn't been butchered or reversed insurmountably midway through due to politics). Top senior programmers also know how to keep overall labor and schedule costs to a minimum when beginning new projects. Staffing solely with lower cost people, severely shortstaffing to burnout, not establishing quality technical design upfront, and rushing buggy products and interfaces out the door are common shortsighted problems that always lose reputation, positioning and market base. Much more expensive in long run. Good engineering/software management to enable the labor/costs efficiency as you have observed is key, but rarely understood. Takes a special combination of people in various roles. Joy when it does happen.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bokeh depth of field in a single pass

When I implemented bokeh depth of field I stumbled upon a neat blending trick almost by accident. In my opinion, the quality of depth of field is more related to how objects of different depths blend together, rather than the blur itself. Sure, bokeh is nicer than gaussian, but if the blending is off the whole thing falls flat. There seems to be many different approaches to this out there, most of them requiring multiple passes and sometimes separation of what's behind and in front of the focal plane. I experimented a bit and stumbled upon a nice trick, almost by accident.

I'm not going to get into technical details about lenses, circle of confusion, etc. It has been described very well many times before, so I'm just going to assume you know the basics. I can try to summarize what we want to do in one sentence – render each pixel as a discs where the radius is determined by how out of focus it is, also taking depth into consideration "somehow".

Taking depth into…

Screen Space Path Tracing – Diffuse

The last few posts has been about my new screen space renderer. Apart from a few details I haven't really described how it works, so here we go. I split up the entire pipeline into diffuse and specular light. This post will focusing on diffuse light, which is the hard part.

My method is very similar to SSAO, but instead of doing a number of samples on the hemisphere at a fixed distance, I raymarch every sample against the depth buffer. Note that the depth buffer is not a regular, single value depth buffer, but each pixel contains front and back face depth for the first and second layer of geometry, as described in this post.

The increment for each step is not view dependant, but fixed in world space, otherwise shadows would move with the camera. I start with a small step and then increase the step exponentially until I reach a maximum distance, at which the ray is considered a miss. Needless to say, raymarching multiple samples for every pixel is very costly, and this is without …

Stratified sampling

After finishing my framework overhaul I'm now back on hybrid rendering and screen space raytracing. My first plan was to just port the old renderer to the new framework but I ended up rewriting all of it instead, finally trying out a few things that has been on my mind for a while.

I've been wanting to try stratified sampling for a long time as a way to reduce noise in the diffuse light. The idea is to sample the hemisphere within a certain set of fixed strata instead of completely random to give a more uniform distribution. The direction within each stratum is still random, so it would still cover the whole hemisphere and converge to the same result, just in a slightly more predictable way. I won't go into more detail, but full explanation is all over the Internet, for instance here.

Let's look at the difference between stratified and uniform sampling. To make a fair comparison there is no lighting in these images, just ambient occlusion and an emissive object.

They …