[deleted]
Untitled topic
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: undefined
#2[deleted]
Re: undefined
#3[deleted]
Re: undefined
#4Some good points.
I know the NASA thing was meant to merely underscore a point but I've seen this comparison so many times that it bugs me and I wish folks would stop using it. The average NASA sw engineer develops a ridiculously low number of lines of code a year (I think I read something like less than 100 ines). A 6000 line patch has 2500 page spec. The dynamics are vastly different than in any commerical software. A nice article on the process is here http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html . Makes a good read.
Re: undefined
#5Some good points. I know the NASA thing was meant to merely underscore a point but I've seen this comparison so many times that it bugs me and I wish folks would stop using it. The average NASA sw engineer develops a ridiculously low number of lines of code a year (I think I read something like less than 100 ines). A 6000 line patch has 2500 page spec. The dynamics are vastly different than in any commerical software…
I had never heard of the NASA comparison before, up until about a week or two ago. Liked it and thought it was worth a mention =)
P.S. I added a "bonus" at the bottom of the article, which was the first thing I remember that really frustrated me at the startup I joined.
Re: undefined
#6Some good points. I know the NASA thing was meant to merely underscore a point but I've seen this comparison so many times that it bugs me and I wish folks would stop using it. The average NASA sw engineer develops a ridiculously low number of lines of code a year (I think I read something like less than 100 ines). A 6000 line patch has 2500 page spec. The dynamics are vastly different than in any commerical software…
I had never heard of the NASA comparison before, up until about a week or two ago. Liked it and thought it was worth a mention =) P.S. I added a "bonus" at the bottom of the article, which was the first thing I remember that really frustrated me at the startup I joined.
I thought this was a good article but one of your points touches on one of the reasons why purely engineer-driven start-ups fail: no business sense. I agree that the MBA-types need to stay away from the engineers on a day-to-day basis, but I've seen too many start-ups shoot themselves in the foot because they launch a product without any market research and no understanding of how to make partnerships that will help them scale.
Good luck with whatever you do next.
Re: undefined
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had never heard of the NASA comparison before, up until about a week or two ago. Liked it and thought it was worth a mention =) P.S. I added a "bonus" at the bottom of the article, which was the first thing I remember that really frustrated me at the startup I joined.
I thought this was a good article but one of your points touches on one of the reasons why purely engineer-driven start-ups fail: no business sense. I agree that the MBA-types need to stay away from the engineers on a day-to-day basis, but I've seen too many start-ups shoot themselves in the foot because they launch a product without any market research and no understanding of how to make partnerships that will help…
...why purely engineer-driven start-ups fail: no business sense.
I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion. His bonus point is that the CTO didn't even do work, that's hardly engineer-driven. And they had a Stanford MBA, who was apparently a drain during product development.
Most successful technology startups are engineer-driven. Google is the ultimate example of just how far a couple engineers can go without any "business sense".
Re: undefined
#8Really good points, thank you. I'm curious, you walked out, but do you know if the start-up ever launched?
Re: undefined
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought this was a good article but one of your points touches on one of the reasons why purely engineer-driven start-ups fail: no business sense. I agree that the MBA-types need to stay away from the engineers on a day-to-day basis, but I've seen too many start-ups shoot themselves in the foot because they launch a product without any market research and no understanding of how to make partnerships that will help…
...why purely engineer-driven start-ups fail: no business sense. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion. His bonus point is that the CTO didn't even do work, that's hardly engineer-driven. And they had a Stanford MBA, who was apparently a drain during product development. Most successful technology startups are engineer-driven. Google is the ultimate example of just how far a couple engineers can go wit…
Who was it at Google who had the sense to clone Overture's business model, I wonder.
Re: undefined
#10I actually got an hiring email from a Stanford MBA who's working out of the Sequoia a month ago. Curious to know if it's the same company/person. =)