3 ms·
Except that you don't need a CTO if you are building out static HTML pages. Sometimes you need to put a twist on the problem to make it a bit more interesting
by korzun 9y ago
Except that you don't need a CTO if you are building out static HTML pages.
Sometimes you need to put a twist on the problem to make it a bit more interesting if you want to attract smart people.
- exabrial 9y agoAre you actually advocating making a complicated architecture, just to "attract smart people?"
- korzun 9y agoI never used the word complicated. If you are a technology company, the architecture should be interesting. Great engineers will not stick around if you call it a day and become a feature factory. Unless your goal is to retain sub-par seat fillers, who show up for a paycheck. Then you can do whatever you want.
- nasalgoat 9y agoAs a CTO I see it as part of my job to find the right tool for the right job. Part of that was when I told the team I wanted our splash page and everything on it to be just static HTML files that would be hand edited if and when it was needed. There was no need for fancy CMS tools for a landing page that gets updated maybe once a quarter. So, that's part of why you need a CTO - to know when to use static HTML!
- korzun 9y ago> As a CTO I see it as part of my job to find the right tool for the right job. If that's a minuscule part of the job, then I agree with you here. My point is, you are not a CTO if the technology behind the product is a static web site. What do your VP and Directors do all day? What about the teams under them? There is a huge difference between a CTO and a front-end engineering.