Pricing Programmers • Hacker News Board

Re: Pricing Programmers

#131

Post by scott_karana » Tue, Dec 08, 2015, 6:33 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #76

jacquesm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think both of you are way out of line. If you spent more than 10 seconds thinking about what the guy wrote then you'd see that there actually is a point to it. Calling him a troll and a douchebag is exactly the opposite of what HN is all about. Attack the idea, not the man or downvote and let it go.

This thread looks like it has an unusually high amount of flagged/down-voted comments.

Yes, but that's just an indicator of its controversy, not its validity.

HN is a pretty homogenous filter bubble after all.

Re: Pricing Programmers

#132

Post by rhizome » Fri, Dec 11, 2015, 4:13 AM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #114

Joeri wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Software is nothing like building a house except in rare circumstances. Real world construction projects are mostly about creating linear combinations of known things. Have you actually built a house before? The plans never quite match up to the reality. It always takes longer than you think, and costs more. No house is exactly the same as another. Every house has bespoke parts to it. Shoddy construction happens of…

Yes, civil engineers use a 30% - 40% fudge factor to deal with those unforeseen costs. They often get the costs wrong, sometimes it's nearly twice more, but those times are rare. Software developers normally apply a 200% - 500% fudge factor do deal with unforeseen costs. Problem is, they are usually wrong by an order of magnitude or two, at whatever direction.

I'd love to know where to find more information on this kind of thing.

Re: Pricing Programmers

#133

Post by oskrim » Tue, Dec 15, 2015, 5:03 AM UTC

eswat wrote: post #94

oskrim wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, don't feed the troll

I guess you can look at the comment as trolling. But look past that and it is an interesting idea that’s worth thinking about.

Well, I kind of see that point of view, if we are talking about the activity of "programming", which in itself may not necessarily be thought of as an productive activity. But the article was about developing software, which is a productive activity.