161–170 of 279 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the way, float(5) is slower, because it creates two objects instead of one.
One of my pet peeves in C++ is seeing: std::string s = ""; It causes calls to strlen and potentially memory allocations. Just use the default constructor!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exhibit B: Steve Ballmer.
There are multiple ways to be a jerk. Clearly Gates succeeded and Ballmer failed. The Gates went on to stop being a jerk. It would be nice to see some example of a Jerk and non-Jerk attempting the same strategy.
The thing is both methods, if applied consistently, produce results. The trouble is the jerk method is a lot less efficient in terms of use of human emotional capital.
> A “No Jerks” Policy Must Be Built Into Your Culture. It is entirely possible to be extremely passionate (and even brilliant) without being a jerk. A “no jerks” policy must be preached and practiced from the highest levels. Following simplistic rules like this is usually what leaves us knee deep in the proverbial. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've never worked with anyone who's as much of a jerk as described in the ar…
Every organization needs a rogue here and there - one who will challenge conventional wisdom and authority in confrontational, i.e. jerkish, ways. It's management's job to try to fit them in and put them in the right positions. I'm sympathetic because I'm very socially inept myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was directed inward, too. "That's the dumbest fucking idea I've ever heard," was a common phrase at MS in the 90s.
fwiw that kind of phrase isn't necessarily 'jerky.' As long as the person you are saying it to understands that you respect him/her, and are just disagreeing with their idea, then it can be fine. It's a risky communication strategy, but I wouldn't condemn everyone who uses it.
what kind of person would say that with full vitriolic sincerity to someone they respect? Why say that when you could say, "I strongly disagree for the following reasons..." or something else similarly diplomatic and actually productive?
to call anyone a "jerk" is something that only jerks do, but everyone looks at themselves as holier than thou. We're all flawed in some way. Labeling people (or attacking people) as "jerks" is in profound violation the principle of non-violent communication, to say the least, and, by the way, so is down-voting those who are critical of the prevailing opinion here without a civil counter argument ;-)
Avoiding calling someone exhibiting a negative behavior by the accepted label for that behavior is healthier than tiptoeing around and pretending that Hannibal Lecter just has different dietary preferences and that's OK.
I have created some companies and managed lots of people. In my experience, the moment I hear someone calling someone else "jerk", it tells me more about the person telling it than about the "jerk" itself. In particular it tells me you as manager can't handle this people, and you are incompetent as manager and need to improve you handling people's skills. It is something similar to Cesar Millan working with dogs, but…
- stating your opinion as fact
- not trying to mentor or give learning opportunities
- relying on being 'right' (I'm rich and successful because I manage jerks the right way)It just sounds like that person was not a good match for the company culture. Many shops will appreciate that kind of drive and attention to detail, as well as the ability to tolerate potentially biting criticism that comes with it. I would have happily hired him away from the author's company.
The dude presented opinions and preferences as facts. Is there any reason to think he would easily accept when one of juniors called him on it? Because if he would be able to accept the criticism, one of colleges would be able to convince him that some of his criticism is wrong. To me it sounds more like he used the biting criticism to keep the "top dog" position.
People who can tolerate potentially biting criticism wont present preferences as facts all that much, because there would learn from people criticizing them for that in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In my experience, talented developers are usually intelligent enough that they can make up for their shortcoming in the social area by consciously adapting their behaviour. That's orthogonal to the issue mentioned in the article. For the purposes of "not being a jerk", it doesn't matter if that comes naturally or if you have to devote conscious effort to it; only the resulting behavior matters. > Brilliant jerks ar…
Having worked at a company with very nice people and no fire to actually get things done (just platitudes), it can be just as bad of an environment if your goal is to succeed. Often times people come in to "play work" and achieve only a fraction of what's possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their personalities could not be more different. Their approach to business and life are completely orthogonal.
And yet all ran cultures where jerks thrived in engineering (or sales in Oracle's case).