A few weeks ago I accidentally sparked, via this tweet, an entertaining debate about what it takes to be called a developer. This led to my post "Do you even develop, bro?", where I explained my view on when it might be appropriate. (Spoiler: It's a broad term.) But my friend Brendan Whitsitt of Imprint Development has just published an even better post on the topic. It's called "Developer vs. Dirt-Flipper" and you should give it a read.

In it, he says this:

So if we tried to sketch a Platonic ideal for what a developer is, we might say that the ideal developer would have a solid understanding of, and experience in, all phases of development, including construction. This person will have a holistic perspective that attempts to optimize across all phases of a project rather than just one part.

This doesn't relate directly to the debate of who should be called a developer, but I think it's an insightful comment. Developers have very specific skillsets, but they also tend to be generalists. Our job is to stitch together lots of different disciplines and elements to ultimately produce a space that people can live, work, play, and/or do other things inside. The more you know about the entire process, the better you can be at any one part.

I even think this transcends just the development process. The more you know and understand about cities, market trends, human behavior and countless other things, the more thoughtful you can be about formulating new developments. It's never ending and it makes for an interesting line of work. But I do think this raises the question of: When is it valuable to specialize?

Back in 2016, I wrote a post called "Manager vs. maker," where I cited an essay by Paul Graham that talks about these two modes of working. To quickly summarize, the manager's schedule is for bosses. It's a calendar broken down into units of an hour that gets filled with lots of calls and meetings. Things are said, and then the manager moves on to the next appointment.

Makers, on the other hand, can't operate in units of an hour. If you write, program, design buildings, create financial models, or do anything that requires uninterrupted focus, sporadic meetings are the most effective way to neutralize any sort of productivity. You need solid blocks of time. I was reminded of this post today because, as I said back in 2016, I like making things.

But it's even more than that. Deep work, reading, and strategic thought are, in my opinion, how you win. And to do these things you also need solid blocks of time. You need mental space. And the 12 minutes you have before your next call, isn't it. So I'm reviving my old post, and Graham's old essay from 2009, as a reminder to myself to be more ruthless about saying no and guarding my calendar.

A few weeks ago I accidentally sparked, via this tweet, an entertaining debate about what it takes to be called a developer. This led to my post "Do you even develop, bro?", where I explained my view on when it might be appropriate. (Spoiler: It's a broad term.) But my friend Brendan Whitsitt of Imprint Development has just published an even better post on the topic. It's called "Developer vs. Dirt-Flipper" and you should give it a read.

In it, he says this:

So if we tried to sketch a Platonic ideal for what a developer is, we might say that the ideal developer would have a solid understanding of, and experience in, all phases of development, including construction. This person will have a holistic perspective that attempts to optimize across all phases of a project rather than just one part.

This doesn't relate directly to the debate of who should be called a developer, but I think it's an insightful comment. Developers have very specific skillsets, but they also tend to be generalists. Our job is to stitch together lots of different disciplines and elements to ultimately produce a space that people can live, work, play, and/or do other things inside. The more you know about the entire process, the better you can be at any one part.

I even think this transcends just the development process. The more you know and understand about cities, market trends, human behavior and countless other things, the more thoughtful you can be about formulating new developments. It's never ending and it makes for an interesting line of work. But I do think this raises the question of: When is it valuable to specialize?

Back in 2016, I wrote a post called "Manager vs. maker," where I cited an essay by Paul Graham that talks about these two modes of working. To quickly summarize, the manager's schedule is for bosses. It's a calendar broken down into units of an hour that gets filled with lots of calls and meetings. Things are said, and then the manager moves on to the next appointment.

Makers, on the other hand, can't operate in units of an hour. If you write, program, design buildings, create financial models, or do anything that requires uninterrupted focus, sporadic meetings are the most effective way to neutralize any sort of productivity. You need solid blocks of time. I was reminded of this post today because, as I said back in 2016, I like making things.

But it's even more than that. Deep work, reading, and strategic thought are, in my opinion, how you win. And to do these things you also need solid blocks of time. You need mental space. And the 12 minutes you have before your next call, isn't it. So I'm reviving my old post, and Graham's old essay from 2009, as a reminder to myself to be more ruthless about saying no and guarding my calendar.