2 ms·

While it probably confirms a lot of fears around here, this comment is pretty hyperbolic. That is to say, it captures the lowest lows (replaceable cog) and some

While it probably confirms a lot of fears around here, this comment is pretty hyperbolic. That is to say, it captures the lowest lows (replaceable cog) and some of the highest highs (experimental physicist in Tetris universe). But most of us are not really suffering under those conditions, except (critically!) in an imagined way. > it doesn't require any insight, unless you intend to write good software, but no one cares about good software. This last statement is demonstrably false. Many people care about good software. Just like they care about good cars, good vacations, good hot dogs. But still, grumpy developers will upvote this and believe in it. They then become a self-fulfilling prophecy. They see threats that don't exist, then at some point they call out those threats and in doing so cash in their chips. I've seen many smart developers miss great opportunities in doing this. They could be learning to make their own terms and push back, taking advantage of high demand. Instead they become a plumber, landscaper, or Ph.D., thinking the grass really is greener over there. Well, maybe so. But that mentality has not changed, so what are the real chances?

pasquinelli 11y ago
"This last statement is demonstrably false. Many people care about good software. Just like they care about good cars, good vacations, good hot dogs." i care about good software. i know plenty of people that do as well, so you're right that my statement was demonstrably false, but the point is people who pay don't care about quality software. that shouldn't be a controversial thing. obviously they care about their costs and the value they get out of the software, not the invisible quality of it. this is my experience, at least. like i said, i'm a mediocre developer. maybe my customers aren't as discerning, or they don't have very interesting problems to solve. also, it's interesting that you characterize being a replaceable cog as the lowest of lows. let's be honest, that's life. of course i'm replaceable no matter what my position in a company. if i own a company, that company's replaceable. it's not a lowly thing to be replaceable, it's the nature of things. like they say, the cemetery's filled with indispensable men. that's not to make every living human being feel lowly, but to help keep perspective.
Chris2048 11y ago
> This last statement is demonstrably false. Many people care about good software. Just like they care about good cars, good vacations, good hot dogs. If allowing poor software means delivering on time, and thus being able to afford those cars, dogs and vacations, which do you think the people in charge of those things will choose?

pasquinelli 11y ago

"This last statement is demonstrably false. Many people care about good software. Just like they care about good cars, good vacations, good hot dogs." i care about good software. i know plenty of people that do as well, so you're right that my statement was demonstrably false, but the point is people who pay don't care about quality software. that shouldn't be a controversial thing. obviously they care about their costs and the value they get out of the software, not the invisible quality of it. this is my experience, at least. like i said, i'm a mediocre developer. maybe my customers aren't as discerning, or they don't have very interesting problems to solve. also, it's interesting that you characterize being a replaceable cog as the lowest of lows. let's be honest, that's life. of course i'm replaceable no matter what my position in a company. if i own a company, that company's replaceable. it's not a lowly thing to be replaceable, it's the nature of things. like they say, the cemetery's filled with indispensable men. that's not to make every living human being feel lowly, but to help keep perspective.

Chris2048 11y ago

> This last statement is demonstrably false. Many people care about good software. Just like they care about good cars, good vacations, good hot dogs. If allowing poor software means delivering on time, and thus being able to afford those cars, dogs and vacations, which do you think the people in charge of those things will choose?