7 ms·

Accidentally hit the up arrow instead of the down, so I will respond. His bug tracking/pm software is actually quite good. He doesn't actually write software

by mrtron 19y ago

Accidentally hit the up arrow instead of the down, so I will respond. His bug tracking/pm software is actually quite good. He doesn't actually write software anymore from what I understand. And attacking him personally doesn't change the validity of his point.

henning 19y ago
How did I attack him personally? I didn't say he was stupid. I just don't like his ridiculous, impossible elitist attitude towards hiring wherein, if you take him at his word, approximately no one is good enough for him. Talking about famous works of high art when you make your living off server-side software that integrates email and version control through the browser is ridiculous, too. The lesson of his business is that you should try to produce boring, solid software that solves problems in a very simple, straightforward fashion using a handful of good ideas (maximize the probability of getting bugs in by, e.g., not having any required fields; prevent the improper use of metrics by not adding much reporting functionality). He has long, old release cycles that ensures polished, stable software. This is not rockstar genius ninja work at all. The Javascript wankery that's far beyond the capabilities of typical code monkeys (the spellchecker, dragging and dropping columns in tables, etc) is the least valuable part of FogBugz.
- dreish 19y ago
  I'll take a stab at an explanation. This guy went to the trouble to gather data, chart it, try to show his readers something interesting, and your response is, "He produces dull, reliable software, so he can't know anything about who is a good software engineer." You did not address his point, the validity of his data, or his reasoning. You simply said that his argument is not valid because of who he is and what he does for a living. Maybe if you'd said something like, "To the extent Spolsky's essay implies that Fog Creek is a place where geniuses crank out the Requiem of software on a daily basis, I disagree because X, Y, and Z," it might not have come across as an ad hominem attack on his point about the differences between good and bad programmers. Frankly I don't think many YC readers care about Fog Creek -- they're here for the more fundamental wisdom about programming.
  - carterschonwald 19y ago
    I think one point thats worth pointing out is that in a lot of Spolsky's opinions regarding whats good and bad CS seem to be highly influence by the fact that he couldn't cut it in terms of theoretical computer science coursework back in college, or at least thats the sense i get from his writings....

by mrtron 19y ago

henning 19y ago

How did I attack him personally? I didn't say he was stupid. I just don't like his ridiculous, impossible elitist attitude towards hiring wherein, if you take him at his word, approximately no one is good enough for him. Talking about famous works of high art when you make your living off server-side software that integrates email and version control through the browser is ridiculous, too. The lesson of his business is that you should try to produce boring, solid software that solves problems in a very simple, straightforward fashion using a handful of good ideas (maximize the probability of getting bugs in by, e.g., not having any required fields; prevent the improper use of metrics by not adding much reporting functionality). He has long, old release cycles that ensures polished, stable software. This is not rockstar genius ninja work at all. The Javascript wankery that's far beyond the capabilities of typical code monkeys (the spellchecker, dragging and dropping columns in tables, etc) is the least valuable part of FogBugz.

dreish 19y ago
I'll take a stab at an explanation. This guy went to the trouble to gather data, chart it, try to show his readers something interesting, and your response is, "He produces dull, reliable software, so he can't know anything about who is a good software engineer." You did not address his point, the validity of his data, or his reasoning. You simply said that his argument is not valid because of who he is and what he does for a living. Maybe if you'd said something like, "To the extent Spolsky's essay implies that Fog Creek is a place where geniuses crank out the Requiem of software on a daily basis, I disagree because X, Y, and Z," it might not have come across as an ad hominem attack on his point about the differences between good and bad programmers. Frankly I don't think many YC readers care about Fog Creek -- they're here for the more fundamental wisdom about programming.
- carterschonwald 19y ago
  I think one point thats worth pointing out is that in a lot of Spolsky's opinions regarding whats good and bad CS seem to be highly influence by the fact that he couldn't cut it in terms of theoretical computer science coursework back in college, or at least thats the sense i get from his writings....