Live data from Hacker News

You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?

mrlacey.com

141–150 of 522 posts

Re: You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?

#141

Oh this reminds me of what went from one of the most infuriating questions I would get asked by investors to one where I almost wanted to bait them into asking it... "Why/how is this worth X dollars/time? I know someone who says they can do it in a week." To which, I eventually learned to reply: "Wow, well... In that case, let me shoot you an article on how to build a Twitter clone in 15 minutes. [awkward pause while…

Gaslighting occurs in the workplace too.

Re: You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it be? For all the things that can be atomic like that, it's good practice. The bigger ones just take time, and aren't shown, until ready for use.

It's an anti-pattern to simply not demo any progress until done. If you're doing agile right (loaded statement), the solution is to make sure everyone understands what's being done. If the audience is expecting all demos to show complete products, find a different audience to demo done-but-incomplete work. The idea is to get feedback before you've sunk six months into something that may not meet expectations.

Yeah, I could've been more precise about what I meant by "demo day." In my comment, I was thinking about the broader, often companywide demo days that many companies hold.

I wasn't talking about intra-team demos to, say, product owners.

Re: You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?

#144
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Early in my career, I learned a simple 'demo day' rule: never demo things that aren't end-to-end done. When you do, it can easily confuse folks who aren't deeply involved in your project ("haven't I seen this already?") and can hurt team morale because they never get a "shipped it" moment that feels good. More to the point: enforcing this rule incentivizes teams to build things in small, shippable components. Nobody…

In a company that understands and embraces agile software practices, this works well. You demo small things that are done, and prototypes are understood as just mockups designed to drive future work. Alas not everyone in power gets it. In more egregious cases, I've been in adversarial environments where teams were pitted against each other to appear "more done." Obviously a recipe for failure. I'm fortunate enough to…

[deleted]

Re: You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?

#145

Oh this reminds me of what went from one of the most infuriating questions I would get asked by investors to one where I almost wanted to bait them into asking it... "Why/how is this worth X dollars/time? I know someone who says they can do it in a week." To which, I eventually learned to reply: "Wow, well... In that case, let me shoot you an article on how to build a Twitter clone in 15 minutes. [awkward pause while…

Nice comeback

Re: You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?

#146

A variant of this that has driven me to quit more than one job is having a non-technical manager look at a UI prototype and consider that 90% of the solution. "The UI guys had this page ready two months ago! Why doesn't this work yet?" It's even worse when you present a working prototype. They simply don't understand that the backend functionality is what's doing the bulk of the work, and just because you can see som…

Joel Spolsky has a great write up on this phenomenon [0]. The opening paragraph is great:

> “I don’t know what’s wrong with my development team,” the CEO thinks to himself. “Things were going so well when we started this project. For the first couple of weeks, the team cranked like crazy and got a great prototype working. But since then, things seem to have slowed to a crawl. They’re just not working hard any more.” He chooses a Callaway Titanium Driver and sends the caddy to fetch an ice-cold lemonade. “Maybe if I fire a couple of laggards that’ll light a fire under them!”

0.https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/02/13/the-iceberg-secret...

Re: You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?

#148
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were they right about the person being a low performer? I'm curious if this is "everybody knows this person isn't doing any work, here's a blindingly obvious metric to use to defend this move to HR" because HR orgs often hate things that don't have metrics attached, or if it's "I don't understand what this person is doing, and I don't see any commits, so it must be nothing"?

Completely valid question, and I think you make a great point here. A lot of baffling managerial behavior is because the manager is working in a baffling bureaucracy. Unfortunately, I think this situation was largely of the latter case, and maybe some motivations I'm not aware of. They were a senior engineer that spent a lot of time coaching the rest of the team, and less time on their own personal work. The commits…

I agree with you on what a manager who doesn't know what they're looking at should do there. You gotta dig in and find out![0]

I've been fortunate recently to not work in orgs where mentoring and collaborating like that is looked down upon - instead, it's encouraged - but my ongoing struggle is to figure out how to quantify it.

I've got two similar but distinct motivations for wanting to quantify it:

* If I have a manager who looks less favorably on it, I want to be able to demonstrate my worth; but also,

* If I'm spending most of my time trying to mentor the rest of the team, I want to see how well I'm doing - and I want to be able to change things and see if it results in positive or negative changes

Sadly I've completely failed at coming up with how to quantify this so far. It all comes down to qualitative peer feedback/manager feedback...

[0] As a technical person, I try to practice the reverse of this: if someone asks for a feature or claims there's a bug, I try to dig until I fully understand why they're asking for what they're asking. So I think asking for similar curiosity and depth from a non-technical person is fair.

Re: You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?

#149

If someone is measuring productivity in code, based on the amount of lines of code written, then they have never written code. Anyone with a tiny understanding of how programming works would totally get why something so small could take so long.

I know the reasons for not producing code consistently. They're logical and I can even verify them. BUT I am still frustrated with myself when I don't produce significant code each day.

Re: You've only added two lines – why did that take two days?

#150
post #89

A variant of this that has driven me to quit more than one job is having a non-technical manager look at a UI prototype and consider that 90% of the solution. "The UI guys had this page ready two months ago! Why doesn't this work yet?" It's even worse when you present a working prototype. They simply don't understand that the backend functionality is what's doing the bulk of the work, and just because you can see som…

Early in my career, I learned a simple 'demo day' rule: never demo things that aren't end-to-end done. When you do, it can easily confuse folks who aren't deeply involved in your project ("haven't I seen this already?") and can hurt team morale because they never get a "shipped it" moment that feels good. More to the point: enforcing this rule incentivizes teams to build things in small, shippable components. Nobody…

That's a funny comparison to demo days early in my career. The company I worked at had too much upper management that would hijack dev teams to make "cool" features constantly. We only had to make something good enough to appear like it worked in a demo though, because then that upper manager would get his bonus or look good to the CEO or CTO and we could move back to doing real work.
Post reply on HN