The GOOG-MSFT Exodus: Working at Google vs. Working at Microsoft
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: The GOOG-MSFT Exodus: Working at Google vs. Working at Microsoft
#2Google might still have a chance to do interesting things. Somehow they're managing to avoid adding huge amounts of "process" to building projects? They ship code fast?
Sounds like everything is going fine...
Re: The GOOG-MSFT Exodus: Working at Google vs. Working at Microsoft
#3Google might still have a chance to do interesting things. Somehow they're managing to avoid adding huge amounts of "process" to building projects? They ship code fast? Sounds like everything is going fine...
He addesses this very point in his post:
"As all organizations mature they tend to add PROCESS. These processes exist to insulate the companies from the mistakes that occur after a company gets to a certain size and can no longer trust its employees to always do the right thing. Requiring code reviews, design specifications, black box & whitebox & unit testing, usability studies, threat models, etc are all the kinds of overhead that differentiate a mature software development shop from a “fly by the seat of your pants” startup. However once you’ve been through enough fire drills, some of those processes don’t sound as bad as they once did. This is why senior developers value them while junior developers don’t since the latter haven’t been around the block enough."
Sounds to me like he thinks Google is in need of some "process" (in fact, he specifically uses random breakage in Google apps to illustrate why this might be so).
I'm not saying he's right (wouldn't know, I've always worked for small companies where there was little need for a lot of "process") but the argument he puts forth is that everything at Google is not, in fact, going fine.
Re: The GOOG-MSFT Exodus: Working at Google vs. Working at Microsoft
#4Google might still have a chance to do interesting things. Somehow they're managing to avoid adding huge amounts of "process" to building projects? They ship code fast? Sounds like everything is going fine...
I agree. To criticize Google still working like a start-up is a big complement.
Re: The GOOG-MSFT Exodus: Working at Google vs. Working at Microsoft
#5Google might still have a chance to do interesting things. Somehow they're managing to avoid adding huge amounts of "process" to building projects? They ship code fast? Sounds like everything is going fine...
Since most of Google's applications are web-based, releases can happen just about any time and can happen frequently as well. This is not the same thing as shipping code fast -- the delta between any two consecutive releases might be quite small, much smaller than what a startup might do in the same period of time.
Speaking as a newly-minted ex-Googler myself, I can say that for some projects, development is not what anyone would consider "fast".
Re: The GOOG-MSFT Exodus: Working at Google vs. Working at Microsoft
#6Google might still have a chance to do interesting things. Somehow they're managing to avoid adding huge amounts of "process" to building projects? They ship code fast? Sounds like everything is going fine...
He addesses this very point in his post: "As all organizations mature they tend to add PROCESS. These processes exist to insulate the companies from the mistakes that occur after a company gets to a certain size and can no longer trust its employees to always do the right thing. Requiring code reviews, design specifications, black box & whitebox & unit testing, usability studies, threat models, etc are all the kinds…
If you go by what the on-board shuttle group [1] is doing for NASA, more process is the key to a better functioning organization.
But then, that's how software should be written when there's lives on the line, which doesn't exactly describe Google.
Still, something to aspire to.
Re: The GOOG-MSFT Exodus: Working at Google vs. Working at Microsoft
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
He addesses this very point in his post: "As all organizations mature they tend to add PROCESS. These processes exist to insulate the companies from the mistakes that occur after a company gets to a certain size and can no longer trust its employees to always do the right thing. Requiring code reviews, design specifications, black box & whitebox & unit testing, usability studies, threat models, etc are all the kinds…
If you go by what the on-board shuttle group [1] is doing for NASA, more process is the key to a better functioning organization. But then, that's how software should be written when there's lives on the line, which doesn't exactly describe Google. Still, something to aspire to. [1] http://www.fastcompany.com/node/28121/print
Sure, but there are plenty of downsides to this.
I've always been fascinated by and impressed with NASA's software methodologies, but they are neither cheap nor fast.
I'm not sure it's something to aspire to as much as one extreme on a continuum of code quality vs. code cost.
I would suggest that it would not be in Google's nor in most companies' interest to do anything like this. Where a company falls on this line depends on their organization's size, purpose, and business model.
Re: The GOOG-MSFT Exodus: Working at Google vs. Working at Microsoft
#8I think the focus on critical thinking in addition to an understanding of fundamentals is a quick way to find people who can learn any existing technologies. What one knows shows what they're interested in, but can they learn new things fast?
I do agree that a title of junior-developer for people who've been in the industry for a while seems silly.
Re: The GOOG-MSFT Exodus: Working at Google vs. Working at Microsoft
#9Google might still have a chance to do interesting things. Somehow they're managing to avoid adding huge amounts of "process" to building projects? They ship code fast? Sounds like everything is going fine...
I agree. To criticize Google still working like a start-up is a big complement.
Not necessarily. Even pg will agree that a lot of the things that make a startup so productive and exciting fundamentally break when you have 15,000+ people.