Some Developers Are Irreplaceable
Photo by Hassaanhere @hassaanhre on Unsplash
I’ve met a variety of developers who are irreplaceable and seemingly have the freedom to do what they want at work. These are the developers who seem to have diplomatic immunity. They write untested code, commit straight to main, and yet somehow still get praised in performance reviews.
They push untested code, they create problems for other developers and are frequently unwilling to help other developers understand their code because they have something more important to do.
I’d be happy if we employed more mundane programmers who make life easier for those around them and solve issues that actually matter.
The Traits of a Good Developer
A good developer ensures that their presence doesn’t determine the success of a project. They make life easy for their colleagues by following these best practices:
Their code is clean and readable.
Anyone can modify their code without fear.
When they leave, the project continues smoothly.
Their code is well-organized and follows industry standards.
They write tests to ensure nothing breaks unexpectedly.
The project can be handed off without much explanation.
They leave behind clear documentation for everything they work on.
In short, a good developer’s impact lasts beyond their tenure. They enable collaboration, not chaos.
A Bad Developer is Irreplaceable (in the Worst Way)
Then there’s the other type of developer. You know the ones, who implement bad practices and eventually become the only person who understands their tangled mess of a codebase.
They create and maintain bottlenecks rather than solving problems.
Documentation? It’s all in their head.
When they leave, you’re stuck cleaning up the mess.
They rarely write tests, leaving the project vulnerable.
Only they can decipher the complexity of their own code.
Making changes feels risky because their code isn’t easy to adapt.
Their shortcuts and messy work cause long-term headaches.
Touching their code feels like walking on a minefield, you don’t know what might break.
These developers actually make the teams they work within worse. They make teams dependent on them, which is the exact opposite of what good software development should be about.
Conclusion
Being truly irreplaceable isn’t about hoarding knowledge or writing code that only you can understand. It’s about fostering an environment where your departure isn’t a catastrophe. The best developers aren’t the ones who are indispensable because no one else understands their work, they’re the ones who are indispensable because they empower others to succeed without them.
Ask yourself this question. Are you making your team stronger, or are you just making yourself look irreplaceable by making everything harder for everyone else?
If your answer is that your presence is weakening the team, and you’re making it harder for other developers think about your approach. How can you do things for the group that will improve things (and the codebase) to make things better going forward? Can you be a developer who will improve other people? If you can, should you?