3 ms·

what the f... does "culture" have to do with FB vs Snapchat. I get it, they copied the functionality fast but only because it was a twist of what FB already doe

what the f... does "culture" have to do with FB vs Snapchat. I get it, they copied the functionality fast but only because it was a twist of what FB already does not because FB-engies were the best in town but because it was too easy.

askafriend 9y ago
If you think it's easy then you haven't developed consumer applications at that scale and quality before. It shows in how you dismiss the process. There's copying and then there's copying well and fast. Copying isn't bad in and of itself - not at all.
- SadWebDeveloper 9y ago
  I always cringe when a developer uses "scale" as intimidation tactic for why "my code is better than your code" and if you believe that only a handful of "facebook engineers" are the gods of scalability then you should probably switch careers.
  - askafriend 9y ago
    No one said any of those things. And if you don't understand why scale matters then you simply don't have experience with it. That's fine. I don't think there's anything useful here for either of us to gain by continuing this conversation though - you seem to have your mind made up and you're clearly angry for seemingly no reason.
    - SadWebDeveloper 9y ago
      > No one said any of those things >> If you think it's easy then you haven't developed consumer applications at that scale and quality before >> And if you don't understand why scale matters then you simply don't have experience with it. cringe
      - askafriend 9y ago
        1. I didn't use scale as an intimidation tactic as you purport. Scale is one engineering requirement that makes tasks either harder or more work than if it weren't a requirement. Scale isn't only in terms of # of users or how much hardware you need to support those users. Scale also refers to complexity of product. When introducing a new feature, there are all of the considerations you need to make in order to integrate that feature into the existing product system. You seem to think both sides of scale are easy to execute flawlessly, and that sentiment can only come from someone who hasn't worked with these constraints before. 2. You said that I think only a handful of Facebook engineers are the gods of scalability. I never said this. I simply intended to give credit where credit is due. They executed extremely well (in my opinion) and they deserve credit (in my opinion). Also - engineers are not the only ones who help scale a product through infrastructure. As I mentioned before, there is also product architecture that needs to be considered when introducing a new feature. The larger question becomes How does this new feature work to provide value in the context of all of the other things that X does?. For something as complex as Facebook or Instagram, this is hard. A very simple example that illustrates this is user education. It's far different when you have a few users on a simple product that does 2 things and you introduce a 3rd than when you have millions of users on a product that does a thousand things and you introduce the 1,001st. I don't understand why you're on a mission to discredit people's work or the challenges they face when building something. It's possible to not like something and still recognize that building that thing was an achievement in some way. It doesn't have to be either or. If you have counter-arguments to what I'm saying and they're informed from your experiences or what you've learned, I'm genuinely interested in hearing them. I don't care much about being right as much as I do about pushing the conversation forward. But I think we can both agree that saying "cringe" doesn't really help anyone learn anything or push the conversation forward.
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
The point OP and a few other hapless souls in this thread are trying to make is that HN's all-consuming hatred for FB and Zuckerberg (irrespective for whether or not it's justified) blinds them and prevents them from giving credit where it's due. There's rarely a single reason for the success of a big beast such as Facebook. Many older social networks had a 'network', Google Plus had good engineering and design... but HN's disdain for all things FB gravitates them towards choosing the least charitable reason so that they can minimize the credit that Zuck et al need to be given.

askafriend 9y ago

If you think it's easy then you haven't developed consumer applications at that scale and quality before. It shows in how you dismiss the process. There's copying and then there's copying well and fast. Copying isn't bad in and of itself - not at all.

SadWebDeveloper 9y ago
I always cringe when a developer uses "scale" as intimidation tactic for why "my code is better than your code" and if you believe that only a handful of "facebook engineers" are the gods of scalability then you should probably switch careers.
- askafriend 9y ago
  No one said any of those things. And if you don't understand why scale matters then you simply don't have experience with it. That's fine. I don't think there's anything useful here for either of us to gain by continuing this conversation though - you seem to have your mind made up and you're clearly angry for seemingly no reason.
  - SadWebDeveloper 9y ago
    > No one said any of those things >> If you think it's easy then you haven't developed consumer applications at that scale and quality before >> And if you don't understand why scale matters then you simply don't have experience with it. cringe
    - askafriend 9y ago
      1. I didn't use scale as an intimidation tactic as you purport. Scale is one engineering requirement that makes tasks either harder or more work than if it weren't a requirement. Scale isn't only in terms of # of users or how much hardware you need to support those users. Scale also refers to complexity of product. When introducing a new feature, there are all of the considerations you need to make in order to integrate that feature into the existing product system. You seem to think both sides of scale are easy to execute flawlessly, and that sentiment can only come from someone who hasn't worked with these constraints before. 2. You said that I think only a handful of Facebook engineers are the gods of scalability. I never said this. I simply intended to give credit where credit is due. They executed extremely well (in my opinion) and they deserve credit (in my opinion). Also - engineers are not the only ones who help scale a product through infrastructure. As I mentioned before, there is also product architecture that needs to be considered when introducing a new feature. The larger question becomes How does this new feature work to provide value in the context of all of the other things that X does?. For something as complex as Facebook or Instagram, this is hard. A very simple example that illustrates this is user education. It's far different when you have a few users on a simple product that does 2 things and you introduce a 3rd than when you have millions of users on a product that does a thousand things and you introduce the 1,001st. I don't understand why you're on a mission to discredit people's work or the challenges they face when building something. It's possible to not like something and still recognize that building that thing was an achievement in some way. It doesn't have to be either or. If you have counter-arguments to what I'm saying and they're informed from your experiences or what you've learned, I'm genuinely interested in hearing them. I don't care much about being right as much as I do about pushing the conversation forward. But I think we can both agree that saying "cringe" doesn't really help anyone learn anything or push the conversation forward.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

The point OP and a few other hapless souls in this thread are trying to make is that HN's all-consuming hatred for FB and Zuckerberg (irrespective for whether or not it's justified) blinds them and prevents them from giving credit where it's due. There's rarely a single reason for the success of a big beast such as Facebook. Many older social networks had a 'network', Google Plus had good engineering and design... but HN's disdain for all things FB gravitates them towards choosing the least charitable reason so that they can minimize the credit that Zuck et al need to be given.