I don’t belong in tech • Hacker News Board

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#41

Post by Illniyar » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:53 PM UTC

Slartie wrote: post #30

dunkelheit wrote: post #7

Maybe she should quit doing user-facing stuff and try getting into systems programming for a change. Or some other area where sloppy solutions lead to tangible reduction of business value and thus are not tolerated. Tech is big, no need to quit all of it.

Totally seconding this. Just trying to "quick fix" apparent bugs, without having understood the complex problem in its entirety beforehand, is a pretty bad approach in quite some areas of the tech world. This is true for most server-side work, for example - you just can't put a band-aid type solution on a problem created by a weird race condition between different requests processed in parallel, because you most like…

"You just can't put a band-aid type solution on a problem created by a weird race condition"

Oh yes you can, and do, often, in payment processing code. I've done it (with a simple sleep for x seconds I think), and I can assure you the higher ups couldn't have been happier.

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#42

Post by onion2k » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #27

rm999 wrote: post #23

The author makes some great points that I initially wanted to dismiss, but I think are actually really interesting. Unlike many other types of engineering/craft, most experienced software developers have settled on an aversion to perfectionism. A good carpenter wants to build a solid house even if no one will ever see its frame. Ditto to an auto engineer at BMW, or a hardware engineer at Apple, or a mechanical engine…

It's not so much that software is "cheap" (it's not, software is notoriously expensive) but that it's incrementally improvable. If I build a house with a bad frame, it's really hard to make it better over time. If I build a quick MVP, I can easily incrementally improve it.

If I build a quick MVP, I can easily incrementally improve it.

But you won't. Even if you want to, the client won't pay you to because all the client sees a working solution, so you never get the chance to.

That's the problem the author is highlighting.

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#43

Post by bsg75 » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:54 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #27

rm999 wrote: post #23

The author makes some great points that I initially wanted to dismiss, but I think are actually really interesting. Unlike many other types of engineering/craft, most experienced software developers have settled on an aversion to perfectionism. A good carpenter wants to build a solid house even if no one will ever see its frame. Ditto to an auto engineer at BMW, or a hardware engineer at Apple, or a mechanical engine…

It's not so much that software is "cheap" (it's not, software is notoriously expensive) but that it's incrementally improvable. If I build a house with a bad frame, it's really hard to make it better over time. If I build a quick MVP, I can easily incrementally improve it.

"Just ship it, we can iron out the bugs later" - later never comes because that cycle repeats ad nauseam.

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#44

Post by vdnkh » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

> Sometimes he says wrong things, and then I have to explain why those things are wrong

>please sit tight while I take a moment to roll my eyes

>You failed fast and broke my heart.

>Maybe I will change

It's hard to learn if you never accept that you're wrong. Admitting defeat is not accepting you're wrong.

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#45

Post by jimmywanger » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

This post is horribly verbose. It constantly brings gender and race into it, then disavows it a couple paragraphs later.

This is a textbook definition of a first world problem. Don't like tech? Don't do it. Nobody has a gun to your head. The worst part is having a job, "hating" it, and spewing your hatred of it across your social circles. That does nobody any good. You're not a slave. Either you dislike not having money more than imperfect tech, or I guess you're going to be doing your job for the foreseeable future.

The worst thing is expecting the world to change according to your ideas of what the "right" thing to do i.

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#46

Post by bsg75 » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

shubhamjain wrote: post #37

Most people that complain about shipping the imperfect solution are not aware how inefficient is striving for perfection in the software world. Personally, I have never seen rumination on every nook-and-corner of the product yielding something fruitful. In fact, it invariably results in the opposite — solving the wrong problems and then, solving the real problems that you never thought would've existed. Rinse. Repeat…

Perfection is the opposite extreme from minimum viable product.

There could be a "happy medium" where a ship schedule incorporates a reasonable level of quality in v1. Minimum viable is too often implemented as ship as fast as possible, and viable gets perverted into first post release patch.

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#47

Post by collyw » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

Sounds more like she values all the startup culture over proper engineering values. "Lean methodology", “fail fast and break things,” Javascript would point in that direction. Pretty sure other areas of tech would value good engineering over those things.

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#48

Post by s_q_b » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

I apologize if you assumed this was a story about a difference rooted in race and gender, because it is not. That’s not where we are going.

That's not an apology.

You deliberately manipulated your audience by playing on their fears of being deemed discriminatory, their anxiety over real ethnic tensions, and perhaps most egregiously, you intentionally encouraged gender stereotyping of women for your own purpose of obtaining attention.

If this story really wasn't about race or gender, why start your first paragraph with a, quite frankly, racially charged masculophobic non sequitur?

-----------

EDIT: Watching this comment see-saw in karma has been very interesting. I seem to have successfully offended both the alt. Right and the alt. Left, so I must be doing something right.

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#49

Post by morgante » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #42

morgante wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much that software is "cheap" (it's not, software is notoriously expensive) but that it's incrementally improvable. If I build a house with a bad frame, it's really hard to make it better over time. If I build a quick MVP, I can easily incrementally improve it.

If I build a quick MVP, I can easily incrementally improve it. But you won't. Even if you want to, the client won't pay you to because all the client sees a working solution, so you never get the chance to. That's the problem the author is highlighting.

Sure I will. Most products have continual work done on them.

Code "quality" (whatever bullshit metric you use for that) is not the only metric of improvement. In fact, it's probably the least important metric to optimize over time.

Re: I don’t belong in tech

#50

Post by threatofrain » Sat, Nov 26, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

zachlatta wrote: post #4

dublinben wrote: post #2

The writer sounds like a crippling perfectionist. The world isn't perfect, and neither is any real program. It's an important step in your personal development to recognize and deal with that. Perhaps they would be happier as a designer, where they can make everything fit into perfectly neat boxes.

> Perhaps they would be happier as a designer, where they can make everything fit into perfectly neat boxes. Typically I'd just downvote, but was that condescending comment really needed? This is the sort of toxicity that turns people away from our community.

That comment about being a designer is an obvious aggression -- notwithstanding whether aggression is net useful. However, saying that someone's speech is characterized by condescension and toxicity is aggressive -- notwithstanding whether aggression is net useful.

Given that you do not possess the prerogative to control the costs of your potential mistakes, ought not calls of toxicity be restrained toward obvious cases? Also, how toxic are mistaken accusations of toxicity?