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

Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks

newsletter.kentbeck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 139 posts

Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks

#81

Post by spockz »

nilirl wrote: post #34

I've met maybe 1-2 people in my whole life who were clearly beneficial 'A' from the get go. There's also a weird 'A' that tries very hard but causes more pain than inspiration. Meaning, they're clearly smart but think that's all that's necessary to be useful. I once worked with an intern from MIT who came in and immediately submitted large PRs everyday that improved the algorithmic complexity for a bunch of functions…

I think there is nothing inherently wrong with changing code that can be improved but shouldn’t have focus as long as the other work also happens. It improves his understanding of the codebase and makes the code “better”. (Obviously, feedback needs to be taken into account.)

I can think of two reasons why he worked that way:

1. It was unclear exactly what he should be focussing on. Were there tasks/tickets describing what needed to be done? Or was it just a vague “fix this”. Doing peephole, local changes to code are easier and improve understanding of the whole. 2. In addition to working on the main tasks, I tend to fiddle around with other code while the main problem is percolating in my brain. Somehow working on other problems helps me solve my main problem faster than just focussing on the main goal.

Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks

#83

Post by dukodk »

This reminds me of a company where they wanted to put me at 100% contribution after 2 weeks. I just told them “I can’t contribute as fast as seniors so they will just have to do more work to hit your burndown charts”

There were multiple red flags so I only lasted 2 months

Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks

#87

Post by nilirl »

LPisGood wrote: post #64
nilirl wrote: post #34

I've met maybe 1-2 people in my whole life who were clearly beneficial 'A' from the get go. There's also a weird 'A' that tries very hard but causes more pain than inspiration. Meaning, they're clearly smart but think that's all that's necessary to be useful. I once worked with an intern from MIT who came in and immediately submitted large PRs everyday that improved the algorithmic complexity for a bunch of functions…

That person doesn’t sound like an A at all in my opinion.

Relative to my technical skills.

One of the PRs was some data visualization code in the Elm language. They explained the solution so beautifully, showing how the problem lay in how the Elm compiler compiled to JS and how JS managed memory. It just blew me away that this person did this in an evening, with no experience in Elm or front-end developement, and that it would've taken me days to be that precise. And they weren't even out of college yet.

Edit: This was pre-LLM, where research and reading were a big part of the job

Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks

#88

Post by nilirl »

falsemyrmidon wrote: post #60
nilirl wrote: post #34

I've met maybe 1-2 people in my whole life who were clearly beneficial 'A' from the get go. There's also a weird 'A' that tries very hard but causes more pain than inspiration. Meaning, they're clearly smart but think that's all that's necessary to be useful. I once worked with an intern from MIT who came in and immediately submitted large PRs everyday that improved the algorithmic complexity for a bunch of functions…

As someone that's a senior at a large corp, I absolutely do not want someone making the codebase more complex with the only benefit being being that it's now barely measurably faster. Especially when there are probably better things to be spending time on (spoiler, there are). Unless you're knocking like 20% off a very impactful metric, or addressing a looming scaling probably, go find something better to do than mak…

I meant any institution where such cost of delay can be absorbed more easily. The cost of one day of that kind of work in a startup is probably more expensive than in a more established firm.

Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks

#89

Post by rambambram »

So, these self-proclaimed seniors... are they the one who signed the employment contract with the juniors? No? Then you're not their boss, you're a colleague. So stop confusing the two. Take some classes in employment law first.

Guys like this are exactly the reason I don't work in big orgs. They might want their ass kissed, I'm not the one who is going to do that.

Re: Hey, n00b, we didn't hire you to complete tasks

#90

Post by watwut »

> That stack of tasks you have to do? Your manager or your tech lead could finish those in much less time and with much less hassle than it takes to help you through them.

I just don't find this to be true and if this is true then the company should rethink how they use juniors. Maybe stop micromanaging them as much and expecting them to do thing your way. Or maybe give them lower stakes or easier tasks. Or maybe let them figure out some stuff by themselves. I dont know what the exact issue in this hypothetical company is, but if they are slowing you down so consistently, something is wrong.

I also find this expectation that a person should do the listed "A" improvements from the get go weird. Juniors, but actually also new seniors, employees grows from just closing tasks to suggesting bigger improvements over time. The people doing A things grow from people doing B things, as they gain experience with particular code base, experience with local politics and mainly gain confidence - or loose excessive confidence.

> You include solid unit tests. (I wish this was a B signal, but baby steps...)

Like, for christ sake, tell them in the first code review. It is not that deep.

Post reply on HN