Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 255 posts

Re: Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users

#81

Post by spacecowboy_lon »

mdellabitta wrote: post #66
interpol_p wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of how we have been hiring engineers. We sit them down for a day with a fairly simple task (build a simple web or mobile app, about three screens with a basic data model) but we make sure to give them a language or framework they are unfamiliar with. They have Google, Stack Overflow, and other employees to use as a resource. It's a great way to get to know new hires while seeing how resourceful and in…

Does this interviewing methodology mean that you only hire devs that don't currently have a gig or have vacation days to blow on the possibility of getting a job with you?

and do you pay them my day rate is £500 :-)

Re: Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users

#82

Post by mdellabitta »

interpol_p wrote: post #77
mdellabitta wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this interviewing methodology mean that you only hire devs that don't currently have a gig or have vacation days to blow on the possibility of getting a job with you?

We do have an initial hour meeting with candidates just to get to know them and propose the trial if they seem like a possibility. Wouldn't most people take a day off to interview somewhere? I know I wouldn't be comfortable ducking out for a few hours to interview — it would feel tense and uncomfortable. Facebook, and I'm sure many other places, do full-day interviews. It's certainly not unusual.

I guess I'm not really thinking this is a hardship on the interviewee, but wondering more if you're implicitly filtering your candidate pool. But you make good points.

Re: Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users

#83

Post by sidcool »

mpdehaan2 wrote: post #56
sidcool wrote: post #50

Comments in this thread are quite cringeworthy. People calling WhatsApp a simple application seem to fail to understand the cost of simplicity under such scale.

It wasn't a great article from wired. I feel the language choice is probably the least contributing factor in terms of what's interesting at that scale. Yes, it's an eclectic choice, but I find systems/component architecture much more interesting than language and program architecture in scaling considerations. A bit more info here: http://highscalability.com/blog/2014/3/31/how-whatsapp-grew-... With regard to fun ch…

I agree, Wired didn't cover the subject with the kind of detail programmers would expect.

Re: Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users

#84

Post by joeyspn »

KuhlMensch wrote: post #43

The language and culture of simplicity are great aspirations, all companies should look at doing this. However, not all companies are going to get such a huge benefit, as not all companies operate within a narrow problem domain. INSTAGRAM is another similar case: relatively simple solution (share photos with limitations), uses only single language PHP (at least since last I heard). I mean this is partly a reflection…

PHP? They're known for being a huge Django (Python) success. Or did fb converted them to HipHop?

Re: Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users

#85

Post by jamespo »

berdario wrote: post #79
ghshephard wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What version of Whatsapp/Platform are you using - newer versions of Whatsapp have spam blocking features. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/whatsapp-rolls-out-new-spam-blocker...

That only works with direct messages. Spammers have upped their ante, and they are now sending spam by adding you to group messages which (when I looked it up) don't allow you to report them as spammer (you can still block them, but that doesn't prevent a spam epidemy)

Exactly how I was spammed, and I echo someone else's comments that I can't believe you can't activate a whitelist.

Re: Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users

#87

Post by atmosx »

amelius wrote: post #17

> Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users Answer: because sending short messages from A to B is basically a solved problem. There is even a programming language (Erlang) that was made with this application in mind. The prototypical "Hello World" example for Erlang is a messaging application.

I bet that WhatsUp infrastructure would work ~ 35 engineers.

That's a social problem though (the fact that 35 guys generate so much cash, while on the other side of the planet 350 millions are looking for a way to pay the rent), not a technical one :-)

Re: Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users

#88

Post by radmuzom »

amelius wrote: post #17

> Why WhatsApp Only Needs 50 Engineers for Its 900M Users Answer: because sending short messages from A to B is basically a solved problem. There is even a programming language (Erlang) that was made with this application in mind. The prototypical "Hello World" example for Erlang is a messaging application.

This comment focuses on the back-end. As important as it is, as far as I remember when FB acquired WhatsApp then one of the main advantages was the presence of clients in almost any mobile device (thanks to J2ME). I am pretty sure it is not trivial to maintain so many clients, even though over time the older clients will disappear and it will be mostly Android / IPhone / Windows (??) that the engineers need to maintain.
Post reply on HN