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

The Positive Programmer

rdegges.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 119 posts

Re: The Positive Programmer

#81

Post by ilaksh »

I remember sitting in a meeting some years ago and we were discussing a new issue tracking system that was being demoed on the projector. The editor component took a full 10 to 15 seconds to load into the page every time. So I said "that editor sucks". It was one of the few things I had said during the meeting.

The manager was very irritated and said something like "We don't tolerate that kind of negativity here". And continued, as if I had said something awful. He said something like "unless you have a solution to a problem" something something in the process of explaining why I shouldn't say that.

So five minutes after the meeting I found out how to disable the slow graphical editor and then the issue tracker became usable for normal people.

Well, I guess I am a negative person then. If it sucks, it sucks.

I will try to take some of this advice constructively though, because I do spend a lot of time focusing on problems that need to be solved. But I can't help but think that the reason a lot of people aren't so critical or 'negative' is that they have just given up on fixing things, or are just so generally ineffective at problem solving that they naturally accept everything as it is.

I would rather be a negative bastard who identifies and solves problems than a happy ineffectual drone who just goes along to get along and accepts the status quo no matter how broken.

Re: The Positive Programmer

#82

Post by SoftwareMaven »

ilaksh wrote: post #81

I remember sitting in a meeting some years ago and we were discussing a new issue tracking system that was being demoed on the projector. The editor component took a full 10 to 15 seconds to load into the page every time. So I said "that editor sucks". It was one of the few things I had said during the meeting. The manager was very irritated and said something like "We don't tolerate that kind of negativity here". An…

If you solve problems, negativity isn't as much of a problem. If you spend all your time finding problems that other people should be solving, that is more problematic.

I think we tend to be negative, especially wrt software, because we know how it could be. So we apply that filter without also applying the "what did it take to get where it is" filter.

Re: The Positive Programmer

#83

Post by lutterkd »

ilaksh wrote: post #81

I remember sitting in a meeting some years ago and we were discussing a new issue tracking system that was being demoed on the projector. The editor component took a full 10 to 15 seconds to load into the page every time. So I said "that editor sucks". It was one of the few things I had said during the meeting. The manager was very irritated and said something like "We don't tolerate that kind of negativity here". An…

The problem isn't that you raise the issue, the problem is the aggressive language "sucks". Not has problems, not is limited, "sucks".

The guy writing it probably knows it has problems. He's probably working really hard on it. Maybe he stayed late at work to try to improve it, instead of seeing his girlfriend. And you come along and just say "sucks". Even if he wasn't there, you're still having a go at him in front of other people.

Being polite, diplomatic, calm and considered is not being an "ineffectual drone". You're falling into that mindset that you have to be a cunt to get stuff done. You don't.

Re: The Positive Programmer

#85

Post by eric-hu »

ryankey721 wrote: post #73
andyl wrote: post #71

When I discovered Hacker News, I loved it because it seemed to be 100% about technology and internet startups. It doesn't feel like that to me any more. I've been involved with other sites where the political discussions overwhelmed the core topic, and the audience just collapsed in a tailspin of high emotions. I hope Hacker News doesn't go that route.

I kind of like the mixed bag that Hacker News seems to be. I'm pretty new here, but I enjoy reading about the future of programming languages alongside posts about Marcus Aurelius' writings. It just seems that it's mostly content about being the best you that you can be and having a broad range of knowledge.

Do you think the recent "Inappropriate comments at Pycon 2013 called out" thread contributed to that mixed bag in a good way?

I worded that carefully. I don't want to draw out sides on that thread topic, just whether it contributed to an educational atmosphere and meaningful discussion on HN.

Re: The Positive Programmer

#87

Post by Ensorceled »

greghinch wrote: post #66

I've been working as a developer for about 10 years, and was involved in some tech communities for about 6 or 7 years prior to that (early high school, doing things like LAN parties, Linux install fests, and generally socializing amongst the "nerd" set). If there's an overwhelmingly common personality defect I've seen amongst tech aficionados, it's a proclivity towards the negative. My observation is that people with…

I've been around for 30 years and agree with the "proclivity towards negativity" and also with an overall trend towards more positive outlooks.

Re: The Positive Programmer

#88

Post by obstacle1 »

ibudiallo wrote: post #70
obstacle1 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't accuse, or segregate, or treat the other party as lesser 1. Drawing the category is in itself an act of segregation. 2. Claiming to know each person in a class of people better than they know themselves is inherently treating them as lesser. It is the definition of claiming superiority. "Don't worry, silly white males, it's not your fault that you don't know The Truth, because you're silly white males! Here,…

This is a good example of focusing on the negativity. It could have been interpreted in so many different ways and I am sure your interpretation is not what the author meant. Before responding any further please re-read your message , then read it one more time.

I'm sorry, I don't play the new age game. Facts are facts and if you have an actual rebuttal I'd love to hear it.

Re: The Positive Programmer

#89

Post by Cushman »

obstacle1 wrote: post #88
ibudiallo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good example of focusing on the negativity. It could have been interpreted in so many different ways and I am sure your interpretation is not what the author meant. Before responding any further please re-read your message , then read it one more time.

I'm sorry, I don't play the new age game. Facts are facts and if you have an actual rebuttal I'd love to hear it.

In the nicest way possible: You are coming off as extraordinarily abrasive. If you think that doesn't matter because "facts are facts", you must be new to human society.

Re: The Positive Programmer

#90

Post by obstacle1 »

Cushman wrote: post #89
obstacle1 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, I don't play the new age game. Facts are facts and if you have an actual rebuttal I'd love to hear it.

In the nicest way possible: You are coming off as extraordinarily abrasive. If you think that doesn't matter because "facts are facts", you must be new to human society.

I don't mean to come off as _extraordinarily_ abrasive, though I do mean to convey my sentiment strongly. I do not think that overlooking the actual content of what somebody says in the name of "thinking positive" is good, or healthy, or itself positive at all.

When somebody says the equivalent of "X group of people have Y attribute", they are making a category distinction. This is what the person I originally responded to said. Yet the person explicitly stated that (s)he did not segregate. That is a contradiction.

I get what OP was probably trying to say, but (s)he emphatically did not say that. I see it all the time on HN and elsewhere: trying to fight one form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misogyny) with another form of category-based discrimination (e.g. misandry). As though this leads to some sort of mystic equilibrium where poof! all discrimination disappears. If human history can teach us anything it's that this equilibrium never happens. So maybe instead of allowing sloppy categorization and overlooking it in the name of staying positive, we should admit when we draw faulty distinctions and take pains to not make draw in the future.

Post reply on HN