The amount of commentators that downright oppose and ridicule a CTO coding is why enshittification is so pervasive. If a CTO understands the codebase to the point where they can contribute to it, I presume that's a good thing. I sense so much fear of actual engineering and technology in the comments and it really highlights why startups are failing to innovate and create compelling products.
Because it's not his job. He should elevate someone else into that IC role instead of holding it for himself. The way he describes it, there is no one else in the company who can do the IC work he is doing, which is long-term bad.
Coding IC work takes a lot of focus and context that someone who is operating at the company-level should not really be in sole possession of.
To me, the whole point of these positions is to take the hit on random bullshit, planning, people management, etc and give your ICs space to do the kind of work he is taking on.
That doesn't mean you have no technical context or involvement in the development process, but it does mean you should probably be at least one step removed from it.
Hell yeah. I was honestly pretty surprised by this reaction here. On one hand, I can agree with the argument about focusing on strategy rather than coding — it makes sense. But on the other hand, I’m personally so tired of all this management bullshit out there, where the higher-ups have no idea about even the high-level technical abstractions of what’s going on under the hood in the projects they’re leading. Just imagine the level of incompetence when a Staff Engineer can mislead a Project Owner about the complexity of implementing simple pagination — and the POs and PMs are totally fine with it, like, “let’s just postpone it.” Hell yeah.
