3 ms·

I'm not sure why you're getting down-voted. You're (mostly) right. Though it tends not to be a black and white decision. More of a sliding scale between how ba

I'm not sure why you're getting down-voted. You're (mostly) right. Though it tends not to be a black and white decision. More of a sliding scale between how badly you want shit done and how much you're willing to sacrifice for that. 10 programmers with an ultra-opinionated library will get more work done than 2 good ones with proper tools for the job. They'll get the finished product fairly close to as good for a fraction of the cost. Almost every business is time constrained in some way. Sometimes you have to make a conscious decision to hire people that are just "good enough" and write "good enough" code. Sometimes you just don't have a choice in the matter if the talent market is sparse.

flavio81 9y ago
> 10 programmers with an ultra-opinionated library will get more work done than 2 good ones with proper tools for the job Maybe. But if the "2 good ones" cost less than 5 times the rate-per-hour than the so-called "mediocre" ones, i'd hire the good ones without hesitation. And in real life, it is that way, at least here the rph factor is 3x at most, usually 2x. This topic it's worth a HN thread of its own, really.
- BigJono 9y ago
  Oh don't get me wrong, I'd hire the good ones in a heartbeat. I was just saying I can see why managers like the strategy of going with something like Django then hiring a bunch of cheap "Django" programmers to whip up a CRUD app.