Live data from Hacker News

Negative focus

nrkbeta.no

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Negative focus

#21

By telling someone else that 'X sucks', you're asserting your knowledge of X (and often Y or Z too, one of which you might recommend instead of X). Within limits, this is perfectly reasonable - there are pitfalls out there, and advising other people to avoid them is helpful. However, there are a few big risks which arise when doing this, particularly around non-technical people: 1) The developer who cried wolf - if y…

I see it as an issue of supply and demand.

There's a huge demand for silver bullets in this industry.

An endless supply of naive, impressionable kids willing to listen to people rant about how everything sucks and X will change the world.

So no surprise, those who rant gain popularity and visibility and here we are.

Re: Negative focus

#22

Here is a conversation that could happen building a bridge if the builders were like some developers (aka, not engineers): - "hey, let's figure out the physics of this." -------> "No, let's build a small bridge here with these Legos. I bet they work" - "ok, let's trace the design key points." -------> "What for? Let's just start right here, aim more or less over there, and that's it" - "Ok, time to go rent some excav…

You've just discovered building a bridge is unlike writing software. Maybe someone will expend the effort to reverse that, making fun of bridge engineers trying to build a smartphone app with a failure tolerant, scalable backend, or something, but I'm not a comedian. I just write software.

Actually, the first joke could be from the user perspective: ---> "so, what do i do with this bridge? Should I, like, step on it or hang from it?"

Re: Negative focus

#23
It's harem-queen behavior. The Business is the brash alpha male that plays hot-and-cold with us, exhibits blatant favoritism, walks in and mushroom stamps us and leaves us confused as to whether that's a good or bad thing. We're all clawing at each other and trying to tear each other down in a general "out-bitch the other bitches" contest.

See, this Tweet: https://twitter.com/MichaelOChurch/status/484126337335324672

    Women and programmers share: undeserved low status to the group because 
    the most popular 5% tear the rest down.
Offensive? For sure. But the underlying reality (in both examples) is offensive, too.

We have people who publicly say things like, "We're all terrible at our jobs" (meaning that humans are not great at reasoning about complex systems, and cannot build maintainable systems under the deadlines The Business tends to demand, especially when the requirements are nonsensical and contradictory) or "95% of us are morons who should be fired" (actually, most of those mediocre programmers are bad because no one ever invested in them.) The Business hears this and sees us as a low-status tribe that'll take abuse without fighting back.

In a contrast to our self-deprecation and acceptance of low status (and worse pay) we have these brash, 24-year-olds who recently flushed out of McKinsey, or who got "accelerated into the one-year analyst program" at Goldman because they told too many sexist jokes or mistook one too many female MDs for secretaries, but who can talk a good game about "crushing it" and raise millions and become "founders".

It's no wonder that The Business has its way with us. It's a legitimately negative situation, but it's mostly not our fault.

We need to be more progressive, more self-protecting, more collaborative and organized, and (dare I say it) more political. Mindless optimism is not the way out.

Re: Negative focus

#24

By telling someone else that 'X sucks', you're asserting your knowledge of X (and often Y or Z too, one of which you might recommend instead of X). Within limits, this is perfectly reasonable - there are pitfalls out there, and advising other people to avoid them is helpful. However, there are a few big risks which arise when doing this, particularly around non-technical people: 1) The developer who cried wolf - if y…

I see it as an issue of supply and demand. There's a huge demand for silver bullets in this industry. An endless supply of naive, impressionable kids willing to listen to people rant about how everything sucks and X will change the world. So no surprise, those who rant gain popularity and visibility and here we are.

> An endless supply of naive, impressionable kids willing to listen to people rant about how everything sucks and X will change the world.

There's also the problem that an engineer who successfully builds a bridge simply keeps to continue building bridges. In software, a 21-year-old programmer can build a webapp, sell it to Google, and walk away a multi-gajillionaire. If engineers could sell bridges to Google, we'd be seeing a lot of strange methods of crossing a river.

It's not just that developers look for silver bullets -- that's a natural instinct in any discipline -- it's that developers have a very real incentive for building and marketing silver bullets.

Re: Negative focus

#25

Here is a conversation that could happen building a bridge if the builders were like some developers (aka, not engineers): - "hey, let's figure out the physics of this." -------> "No, let's build a small bridge here with these Legos. I bet they work" - "ok, let's trace the design key points." -------> "What for? Let's just start right here, aim more or less over there, and that's it" - "Ok, time to go rent some excav…

On the other hand, a lot of software is built like bridges. Avionics software (a hefty segment of developers who don't seem to publicly blog much) is built starting with formal requirements documents, and includes formal verification against those requirements, quality audits, signoffs by senior staff and FAA representatives, etc.

Software can be built like bridges. But most software doesn't really need that level of attention, so it isn't built like bridges. In a commercial environment, the benefits of the added overhead would have to justify the expense. I would roughly estimate that avionics-style overhead would quadruple the budget and schedule of your typical web or iOS software project. Is it worth it?

Maybe it'd be worth just being a little more strict, even if not four times as strict. Someone has to make those decisions. But it's certainly possible to take software development more seriously.

Re: Negative focus

#26
post #25

Here is a conversation that could happen building a bridge if the builders were like some developers (aka, not engineers): - "hey, let's figure out the physics of this." -------> "No, let's build a small bridge here with these Legos. I bet they work" - "ok, let's trace the design key points." -------> "What for? Let's just start right here, aim more or less over there, and that's it" - "Ok, time to go rent some excav…

On the other hand, a lot of software is built like bridges. Avionics software (a hefty segment of developers who don't seem to publicly blog much) is built starting with formal requirements documents, and includes formal verification against those requirements, quality audits, signoffs by senior staff and FAA representatives, etc. Software can be built like bridges. But most software doesn't really need that level of…

Yes, it is the nature of the latest innovations that are paying off. In other words, who cares if the flapping bird was supposed to go through the opening, but the software miscalculated and the birdie died?

This line of argument supports the point that developer != engineer.

Re: Negative focus

#27

No. You're too damn positive. "We could solve this problem if we just had some idealistic 20 somethings form a start-up about it." "This industry sucks, but someone will have the courage to 'disrupt' it." "When I die, I want my body frozen so I can be regenerated after the singularity." "My start up is doing great. I'm 'crushing it.' All the time." "I'm not overworked. I just require far less sleep than the average p…

That's what I was thinking. The gloom & doom only comes from people who like to think about that side of software engineering and usually these people have uni degrees. They worry about the complexity of software and where it's going. I am one of those people (while other people are trying to get work done). And as such I find the industry way too optimistic/positive.

Re: Negative focus

#28
post #3

Ranting gets attention, so people rant. I've noticed people will use some library or platform or language, and at first they'll love it. Then two or three years on, all they can see are the places it falls short in the domain they're working in. I've personally experienced a disconnect when I'm still in the honeymoon phase, and the speaker has progressed to the "I-hate-this-it's-terrible-throw-it-out" stage.

Just hang on until the "stockholm" phase.

Re: Negative focus

#29
I don't think we are too negative as an industry. We are exactly as negative as we need to be. We say everything is horrible, because everything actually is horrible and broken and held together with baling wire and duct tape. We always seem to be complaining because, despite what we may believe, we are not in control. We are not now a meritocracy, and we never have been. We dedicate our lives to continuous self-improvement and refining the skills of our craft.

But we are still subservient to people who have chosen to study human interactions and business organization. And they follow business fads. They mandate Waterfall or Scrum because other people use it, and they believe incorrect decisiveness is better than endless vacillating trials and experimentation for a piddling, measly, single-digit-percentage gain in efficiency. We want to feel pride in our work, but someone else also wants it to make money. We want to build bridges that last centuries, but those paying us just want to cross an inconvenient obstacle and never look back. We want to avoid reinventing the wheel. Those paying us would rather pay us to do that than buy someone else's crappy wheel. Hell, sometimes we even build wheels to give away to anyone who wants one, and we still have to reinvent them.

Everything is horrible. We are always complaining about it, and always trying to fix things. But none of us have money, aside from those few who won a startup lottery. The people who have the money call the shots, and people with money only listen to people who have money. So they make Cargo Cult copy environments from our startup lottery winners, with zero understanding about the true source of their success. We often don't even understand it ourselves.

To a person that measures worth by profits, there is a natural inclination to discount the sheer luck of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right tool. And even if there is someone out there holding conductive rods and a giant capacitor bank, lightning could still strike the guy with a shovel.

Essentially, we have a lot of useful knowledge and skills, but still no respect. People listen to what physicians say, even if they tell us that magic beans can make us lose weight. People listen to what lawyers say, even if they tell us to just slip this neck brace on before going into the courthouse. People listen to what engineers say, even when they crash spacecraft into planets because they forgot to label their distances with units. Very few people listen to what a software professional says. They are literally surrounded by our work, which is often done so well that they don't even notice it is there, but when we speak, it sounds to them like Charlie Brown's teacher: "wah wah whaaa ma waa na nah ba".

And to be honest, a lot of that is our fault. We learned to communicate effectively with perfectly logical yet absolutely moronic machines rather than emotional and intelligent humans. What we desperately need is the prestige and charisma to establish professional boundaries in such a way that the people paying us don't cross them, and so that the quislings among us won't support those breaches just because its the only way for them to get promoted.

We need a cartel, folks. I know that most of us, myself included, find the idea repugnant, but the current arrangement is not working for us.

Re: Negative focus

#30

By telling someone else that 'X sucks', you're asserting your knowledge of X (and often Y or Z too, one of which you might recommend instead of X). Within limits, this is perfectly reasonable - there are pitfalls out there, and advising other people to avoid them is helpful. However, there are a few big risks which arise when doing this, particularly around non-technical people: 1) The developer who cried wolf - if y…

"Considered Harmful" was not Dijkstra's idea, but his editor! And there's no way to say that "PHP is good", that's just untrue in all universes.
Post reply on HN