"The businessmen and managers alike seem to have realized this extraordinary ability of a programmer to ponder and analyze..."

Well, hmm. Ok. So do many other non-programmer humans. While I may sympathize, let's not overdo it on this. And, just from my viewpoint, let's not use this supposed trait as a justification for non-contributive behavior. (Not that any of us would ever actually justify our behavior.)

"However, there are a few things about me I find disturbing. At my place of work, I would find myself ‘daydreaming' ..."

Self inspection is a Good Thing.

"...my mind tells me that it alright to allow myself this form of ‘natural’ relaxation..."

And maybe it's right, maybe not. It's a good thing you're in control of it. "Integrity, bravery and ethics are often achieved by overcoming one's own mind."^©(lol)

"This seems to strengthen my initial point. ", "...if the program turns out to be of no benefit to the company, should this monk’s action be regarded as an act of theft? But if his program is deemed useful, he should receive a tap on the shoulder, right?"

"should", lots of "should's". Should who? Should who do what? My comments in that thread were really just idea starters for someone on the other end of a relatively unknown situation, not intended as fixed opinions, or rightness. For me, there are just no absolutely correct, objective answers for this. I'd guess most of us have seen a scenario where they did something good, were acknowledged for it, and reprimanded anyway. Plus I'd guess we've all seen the behaviors between the extremes.

Is the company wrong if they release an employee for such behavior - even if the result is good? Yes they are, and no they aren't. Whose opinion or viewpoint are we using to answer? Assuming they released someone for this, maybe they should have been more forgiving in order to reward or promote this person's initiative. But then again, maybe the owners are aware of dozens of such stories in the company - and no real actual 'work' is getting done for all the volunteer self-started/company-funded projects!

It's hard to be absolutist about this issue. Too many variables, including the definitions of right and wrong, and the infinite variables of the humans involved.

• Who's the employee? An experienced hand who's made many valuable contributions that management is aware of and has earned h(er|is) tenure? A newbie who can be forgiven over-achieving as a sign of eagerness? An employee who's known as someone that probably can do such a project but is already gathered a reputation as a malcontent who sometimes infects others with their discontent or disagreements?

• Who's the management? Are they owners too, or hired guns covering their asses? Are they wide-awake and clear thinking, or are they emotional power-players?

• What was the 'project' in question? Is the result so irrefutable that nothing but reward can be given? That's how good it can be, for instance (which can cause intense political jealousies in the strangest places, btw.)

"Just where do we draw the fine line between outright theft and useful form of relaxation, self enhancement (in terms of additional knowledge gained from mind stimulating activities such as say building a JAPH :-), or indirect investment into the operations of the company (such as the case with a thread I brought up here)? "

Every company I've ever been aware of expects to benefit by several multiples of what it costs them to have you there providing your services. Where's that line drawn for you?

"...it’s already rather a common knowledge that programmers are able to solve challenging problems while involved in seemingly unrelated activities..."

I'm saving this for future my future business partners... :)

Ultimately, I guess I think that if one has signed up to work, then one should do their job so well, make contributions that are so welcome, deliver beyond expectations - that having to worry about things like this isn't even an issue. And, if you are delivering abundantly, and no acknowledgment arrives - Run!

You are right, the reason I initiated this discussion was that I wasn't set on any given point. And you are right by saying:

For me, there are just no absolutely correct, objective answers for this. I'd guess most of us have seen a scenario where they did something good, were acknowledged for it, and reprimanded anyway. Plus I'd guess we've all seen the behaviors between the extremes.

I couldn't come up with any 'absolute' answer. There are always two sides of a coin. Being hired to to do programming in the first place, I think that minor distractions such as, say, reading more of perlop or playing with a JAPH may in the end be constructive. At my work, our bosses even discussed the idea of letting us (programmers) take a day or two off to study any area of Computer Science that might interest us. By letting us enhance our knowledge on our own time (although still paid for by the company), they make an investment in their company's 'knowledge bank'. Besides, they don't have to pay even more cash for a 3rd party course.

Again, I didn't mention this in my original post, but on many occassions I would find myself working significantly harder than called for by the bosses. In one particular case, I had to stay overnight to complete an important project. This was done completely on my own initiative. Had I not agreed to do so, no one would be there to complain. To sum up all, I do believe that my input into the company is matching or exceeding company's contributions towards my bi-weekly paycheque.

It's also a form of "relaxation" that directly benefits the company. In contrast, a non-admin in a cubicle near mine seems to spend the majority of her day making personal calls. This makes it all too easy for me to justify an hour here and there with my friend perl.

My advice is to not sweat it unless your finding that you're not getting your real work done. Results matter more than a minute-by-minute accounting of your time.
/.02

~monk d4vis
#!/usr/bin/fnord

Well said, d4vis!

I don't think any reasonable company (put more cynically, any reasonably realistic company) is going to expect you to keep your nose to the grindstone for every minute of your workday. If no deadline looms, people are going to take it easy, and hacking on Perl projects is more useful to your employer than, say, reading Usenet or running a hockey pool.

Most of the programmers at my workplace keep a handful of interesting technical books around for those idle moments between crises, and management sanctions these occasional breaks as long as we deliver on time. I think this is one major reason why the standard of programming here is so high. (The other is code reviews.)

The concern that I have with the idea of idle hacking at work is that you tend to run into intellectual property issues (c.f. tilly's unfortunate situation). If you can avoid those and meet your deadlines, more power to you.

--
:wq

As a system administrator - and I'm speaking only for myself, although I suspect many would agree with me - I find that the tools I need are often few and/or inadequate. As a result, I often find myself "rollin my own," so to speak.

I was not hired as a programmer. I was hired to administer systems. If I write code, am I straying outside the boundaries of my assigned duties? Not if I'm coding a tool that will assist me in my administration duties. And, in order to learn how to write some of these tools, I sometimes have to screw around with seemingly unrelated scripts. It's all part of the learning process, which leads to tools to assist in the administration of these systems.

So, I call it training. On the surface, it may not seem related, but it will ultimately lead to better coding skills and, therefore, better tools. Wax on, wax off.

On an unrelated note, in response to BUU's comment on elitism: Programmer aren't special simply because of our abilities to reduce the complex to the simplistic. We're special because we are genetically superior beings. :-)

If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me.

especially if your program has nothing to do with the company, then designing/writing it while at work is no different then sitting at work figuring out how to beat that last level in starcraft

Not true. If your job involves anything resembling programming (programmers, sysadmins, even helpdesk (unless it's at a pure read-from-the-script level)), tinkering on some code can improve your ability to do your job. Starcraft almost certainly won't.

All a programmer is, is a person who can reduce complex instructions into very, very simple commands

And that's not doing things differently and having a different approach than "normal" people?