3 ms·
> You just need to be able to spot an actual issue. My problem with the article is that it's extremely hard for humans in general, and critics in particular, t
by morley 10y ago
> You just need to be able to spot an actual issue.
My problem with the article is that it's extremely hard for humans in general, and critics in particular, to accurately model the alternative. I think that's the heart of what the commenter is talking about.
Unless you've worked at Facebook's scale, it's really difficult to tell what happens. (I don't work anywhere near that scale, so maybe take my opinion with a grain of salt.) This critic is reading signals and attributing them to a failure on Facebook's part, but who knows if an alternate scenario (a) actually makes things better, or just results in different trade-offs; or (b) is even feasible for a company of Facebook's size to do. I have no idea. There are only a handful Facebook-sized enterprises that have ever existed.
- forgottenpass 10y agoMy problem with the article is that it's extremely hard for humans in general, and critics in particular, to accurately model the alternative. The lack of a visible solution does not make all criticism less valid. Criticism can be an expression of flaws without including a drubbing for not doing better. It's often made public as combination of the two, but the later can be disqualified without impeaching the validity of the former. Even if the criticized thing is the best possible expression of the goal(s) given all the other constraints, it is still right to accept and express that limitations exist. -- Pretending they don't is just an ugly attempt to prevent the critic from refining their criticism to include the goals and self-imposed constants they view as causing the flaw.
- kohanz 10y agoIt's nearly impossible to read this article without receiving the impression that the author is heavily implying that there is indeed a better way (vague insinuations of slowing down and focusing on quality).
- forgottenpass 10y agoI never said it wasn't. My comment making a point about criticism in general addressed both possibilities.
- kohanz 10y agoSure, but the problem I (and I presume others) have with the author not presenting an alternative or an even an acknowledgement he that doesn't necessarily know of one is that the message loses a bit of credibility. I think the author knows that code quality isn't actually the most important output/outcome for Facebook, but as far as I can tell, he does not relay that. In short, he states that Facebook has a code quality problem, one which most of us would expect of an organization of that size, but is it really a problem? Would their bottom-line be better with higher-quality code that took longer (higher cost) to develop? Make that argument. Convince us why code quality is a problem and how improving it would make sense to all stakeholders (not just engineering). I think this message resonates with an audience of software developers (myself included), but it doesn't pay attention to all of the competing interests.
- sjg007 10y agoI think he looked at publically available data and drew his own conclusions in line with his expertise. All valid. Feynman never built a space shuttle (I believe) but was instrumental in identifying reasons for the Challenger disaster.
- taeric 10y agoDifference here is the shuttle information was easy to verify with experimentation.