9 ms·
Good engineers make terrible leaders
- paulsutter 9y agoChina’s leadership is mostly engineers, and in the US we have lawyers. Seems to be working well for China.
- selimthegrim 9y agoHow'd it work out for the Soviet Union?
- clhodapp 9y agoWere Soviet leaders mostly engineers?
- MagnumOpus 9y agoVery mixed. Stalin had a liberal arts education in the broadest sense. Krushchev was a metal worker, Brezhnev was an engineer (metallurgy), Gorbachev was a lawyer. Andropov studied marine engineering but was really only at the university to become a professional political lifer and switched to studying politics and history after the war...
- gaius 9y agoYou should read the book Soviet Science Wars, it's fascinating. The Soviets almost didn't get nukes because Lenin disagreed with physics on the nature of atoms...
- acqq 9y agoSome stats for the U.S: http://www.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_US_congress_members_are_lawyers http://www.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_US_congress_memb... "lawyers comprise the biggest voting block of one type, making up 43% of Congress. Sixty percent of the U.S. Senate is lawyers."
- regulation_d 9y agoIn general, I think it makes sense for a large percentage of the people making laws to be familiar with how laws work.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- maxxxxx 9y agoIt totally doesn't make sense. When I look at my company lawyers are rarely the ones that come up with new strategies or anything innovative. They implement what others tell them to do. That's a valuable thing but I don't think being a lawyer is a good qualification for leadership. I would argue you can see this in Congress where they seem to be more interested in fighting than actually delivering something.
- regulation_d 9y agoI'm certainly not suggesting all leaders should be lawyers, just that a fair number of the ones making laws should be. The US legal system is complex. Every time my very business-minded senator opens his mouth, there's a real good chance that he will say something dumb about the way the legal system works. Also, I'm generally not looking for laws that are innovative. Companies are suppose to innovate and risk a lot to do so. But if a company goes bankrupt, it's rarely a big deal. Governments don't have that level of flexibility. They need good, stable policy, from people who are good at seeing both sides of whatever argument is in play. You know what kind of people are good at doing that? Lawyers.
- maxxxxx 9y agoEach member of Congress has a substantial number of lawyers behind them to write the actual laws. That's necessary. But the direction should come from people from all walks of life, not just lawyers. I think the real problem may be that Congress creates laws by lawyers for lawyers.
- icebraining 9y agoFun fact: the current Secretary-General of the UN is an EE graduate, who taught Systems Theory and Telecommunication Signals before becoming a politician.
- saryant 9y agoRex Tillerson has a degree in civil engineering. Seems like perhaps that's not a panacea. (His predecessor at Exxon has a PhD in chemical engineering)
- whataretensors 9y agoThis is one of those 'common' knowledge things that is pushed forward by non-engineers and further backed up by other non-engineers. Since we account for ~ 1e-3 or less of the population we are so outnumbered it becomes part of the culture. If you can program you are likely among the smartest people in the world and can do better at any analytical task than almost anyone else.
- aalleavitch 9y ago> If you can program you are likely among the smartest people in the world and can do better at any analytical task than almost anyone else. That's an awfully strong unsupported statement.
- jsmthrowaway 9y agoConsidering 90% of “programming” as a trade, especially as it pertains to this audience, is basically gluing Excel sheets together or figuring out more clever ways to extract capital from consumers... I would like to see a compiler/PL expert or a ML expert take on extending our knowledge of quantum mechanics or cosmology, though, since they’re apparently better at solving analytical problems than everyone else. Maybe Bryan Cantrill or Theo de Raadt can go team up with Stephen Hawking and we can finally explain dark matter conclusively. Programmers were all that was missing, it seems like.
- junkscience2017 9y agoso I am either a lifelong academic physicist or I am an idiot? Who takes out your garbage?
- aalleavitch 9y agoNo, the problem is that intelligence doesn't work that way to begin with. Not only the smartest people are programmers, and being a smart programmer doesn't make you capable of doing someone else's job.
- 9y ago
- asmithmd1 9y agoSome problems are engineering problems - design and estimate the cost of a highway bridge that crosses a river at point X; and some problems are "political" - decide the point x where a bridge will cross a river. Only an engineer can decide if a problem is an engineering one or a political one.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y agoI completely disagree with this for several reasons. The main reason is that the article, sells short engineers abilities. Let's look at software engineering, because that is what I am most familiar with. First, not every problem has a well defined solution. For example, trying to decide what is the best way to pack a truck for deliveries is essentially the knapsack problem and has no solution that we could actually implement. Instead, what is done is to use heuristics to find an approximate solution. In addition, in software engineering, there is such a thing as a desire to write beautiful and elegant code and design. Those things don't have an objective definition, but a subjective definition. Software engineers will try to write that kind of code and will discuss and debate the various methods of achieving that (look at the whole functional programming debates). Finally, the article makes it seem like everybody's morals and values are so different. It over exaggerates the differences. The vast majority of people want things according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_need.... They generally want government to make sure the lowest 2 levels (physiological needs - ie clean drinking water, food, etc and security - low crime, rule of law, etc) are provided while being allowed to pursue the things higher up the pyramid. What was described above is an optimization problem. Sure, there is no feasible and probable perfect solution. However, engineers deal with this all the time. Most code that is written does not have formal proofs. Often heuristics are used and measurements of performance in common scenarios bare taken. The same approach can also be used with social issues. Experienced engineers are also good at communicating to the rest of the team why a certain approach is a good one. This communication skills can also be used in the social arenas. Thus don't let this article discourage you. Engineers do have the ability to deal with ambiguity and tradeoffs and communicate about them and can be excellent leaders.
- ubersoldat2k7 9y agoI agree with you. The best managers I've had have done software before or keep doing it, as I hope someday too.
- paraschopra 9y agoAuthor here. > First, not every problem has a well defined solution. For example, trying to decide what is the best way to pack a truck for deliveries is essentially the knapsack problem and has no solution that we could actually implement. Instead, what is done is to use heuristics to find an approximate solution. But even if optimal solutions are not to be found, you can state it objectively and know it's an unsolvable problem and so you interpret results in the same light. In human system, you cannot even state the problem objectively. >Finally, the article makes it seem like everybody's morals and values are so different. It over exaggerates the differences. If I was overexaggerating, we wouldn't have ISIS, Korea and many other cultures that pose threat to human existence every now and then. The difference of opinions is all around us, just open any news website.
- mattnewport 9y agoIt's nonsense to suggest that engineering decisions are simple black and white decisions compared to other kind of problems. We may be able to calculate the properties of a particular bridge design reasonably accurately but engineering is full of tradeoffs. Some of those tradeoffs are part of even doing those calculations (which necessarily involve simplifications and imperfectly known or measurable inputs and involve cost benefit tradeoffs). There are vast numbers of complex tradeoffs in designing and engineering a bridge beyond that: costs and timelines vs quality, aesthetics and other qualities, projections of future traffic patterns... Fundamentally engineering is all about smart tradeoffs, including those involving working with limited data about the problem vs. gathering more data. On the other side, politics is full of examples of objectively bad policies where relevant experts know better ways to achieve the stated objectives. In reality many of the problems with politics stem from the fact that the stated objectives are not the real objectives behind policy decisions. The article is riddled with other errors and fallacies too, too many to list in detail.
- paraschopra 9y agoAuthor here. I'd love to get a list of errors and fallacies. I actively try to learn to think better, so it'll be great if you could point them out. You are missing the point of the article. The question isn't about tradeoffs, it is about knowledge (or lack of such tradeoffs). In engineering problems, tradeoffs are known and in human systems, tradeoffs aren't known. > On the other side, politics is full of examples of objectively bad policies where relevant experts know better ways to achieve the stated objectives. In reality many of the problems with politics stem from the fact that the stated objectives are not the real objectives behind policy decisions. If you read the notes (and the paper linked), that's the exact point I'm making in the article.
- mattnewport 9y agoI don't believe I'm missing the point of the article, I'm fundamentally disagreeing with it. You say "In engineering problems, tradeoffs are known and in human systems, tradeoffs aren't known.". I believe this is more false than true on both counts. I don't believe my second point is the one you make in the article. I'm saying that frequently policies are not the best known means to achieve the stated objectives of the policies. The problem there is not that people can't agree on the problem they are trying to solve (though that is frequently a problem, both in politics and engineering) but that the policy solutions are known to not be good ways to achieve the stated goals and that in part that is due to the real goals being different.
- junkscience2017 9y agoauthor cites the problem of motivating a sales team...anywhere I have worked, this has been the quintessential "objective" process; meet quota, get bonus. fail to meet quota thrice, adios.
- dahauns 9y agoProblem: It's been shown time and again that this doesn't work. (For all but the lowest simple, mechanical, repetitive tasks.) http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-01567-001 http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-01567-001
- junkscience2017 9y agocounter example: the world economy, most of which is still kept running with the threat of repercussions
- dahauns 9y agoHow is this a counterexample?
- mikebenfield 9y agoThe article seems to make two different points that don't completely fit together: 1. Non-engineers are better leaders because they can find solutions to "wicked problems", problems with many interacitng parts where there is no predefined objectively right or wrong solution. 2. Non-engineers are better leaders because they are better at persuading others that their shitty solutions are actually good. I might buy #2 (for some definition of "better leaders"); I'm not so sure about #1.
- junkscience2017 9y ago#1 flows from the strange rationalization that regardless of anything else in life, studying humanities for four years in college turns one into a great abstract thinker....while studying engineering for four years permanently transforms you into a robot amazing that people still believe that an undergrad education either turns you into Napoleon or R2D2
- greenhouse_gas 9y agoAnd that an engineer can't be interested in humanities - there are plenty of engineers who have hobbies outside engineering.
- sidlls 9y agoHow odd. There is a meme in engineering circles that people who don't study math or science are somehow less able to think and reason. I wasn't aware of the sort of inverse you posit. My personal experience on this is extremely lopsided: it's rare for me to encounter a non-techie who doesn't fawn embarrassingly at me when I tell them what my academic background is (physics) or gush over how smart and good at math I must be, etc., while on the other hand I hear from engineer peers all the time about how non-techies are dumb, incompetent, play politics, etc.
- junkscience2017 9y agonowhere did I claim that only engineers were numerate, logical or analytical
- katastic 9y ago>Good engineers make terrible leaders The entire position of lead engineer/developer seems to disagree with this.
- pbourke 9y ago> Thus anyone claiming an objective basis for a problem in society is taking a simplistic view. And that’s my issue with saying technology is causing progress. The author seems to create a false dichotomy between solving “wicked problems” according to a pure engineering approach and the alternative, which is not articulated. Yes, there is probably not an engineering solution analogous to building a bridge to issues such as poverty. There is, however, a boatload of research about various facets of the problem that will inform a good solution. A good leader will become apprised of this research and use it to support a position that they advocate for. The ultimate position will of course be motivated by values, culture, etc but if it ignores evidence - gathered by science - or execution - informed by engineering, then it’s not a good solution.
- josinalvo 9y agoFully aggree. In fact, I'd go further: having an engeneering mindset is necessary but not suficient for good leadership
- bullsandabears 9y agoThis clickbait headline is leaning on a study behind a paywall so we can't argue the actual points or data. Don't bother
- eternalban 9y agoOP is conflating "method" and "mindset". The engineer is a methodical thinker and tinkerer. I would think in fact engineers would make excellent central committee material. :) "Salesmen" as leaders. Well, let's see how that turns out. MAGA or GAGA, tbd ..
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- slededit 9y agoEngineers: Know your place and stay within it. Get those silly little ideas out of your head and back to whatever it is you do. Isn't your boss waiting?
- paraschopra 9y agoFor the record, I'm an engineer myself.
- slededit 9y agoSurely you've met engineers that aren't purely analytical?
- paraschopra 9y agoYes, I have. As a clarification, by good engineers, I mean the mode of thinking that goes with good engineering / problem solving skills. People can have multiple skills.
- junkscience2017 9y agookay, well if you really believe this...why the article?
- chacham15 9y agoEngineering isnt simply solving known problems. Research in engineering is working in exactly the situations that he describes: where there are potentially many unknowns and trying to optimize for some variable, the same as we would in a political situation. The main difference is the inputs and outputs to the system: with a lot of engineering its pieces of hardware + software where as in politics its policy + law.
- danielblazevski 9y agoWhy is this article with this click-bait title on the top of HN? A lot of leaders start off as engineers then go to CTOs, VP level, CEOs etc. And this idea that engineers are purely scientifically minded totally ignores the endless number of articles suggesting that the best senior engineers have strong product and business sense, and in many places (but not all) having those skills are a defining quality of a senior engineer. Engineers definitely NEED scientific background to enter the field, but this totally ignores that engineers grow business and product skills throughout their career, and need to do so to be effective
- jandrewrogers 9y agoI think a pair of issues are being improperly conflated here with respect to the complexity of human systems. We see a similar problem contained within software engineering (and chemical engineering): most humans, including most engineers, are terrible at analysis and engineering of complex distributed systems. Human systems are just another example of this problem domain. Systems level engineering breaks a problem-solving heuristic that people rely on to make analysis simple: that changing a variable does not feedback into the value of that variable, which allows you to break a big problem into a bunch of trivial small problems that can be solved independently. For systems level engineering problems, you have to consider the interaction of all components simultaneously, which is a very different type of analysis (you are designing for locally stable and hopefully approximately optimal systems level equilibria). It also has characteristics that go against the way humans want to design things: the general design pattern is that you can't design for "good" outcomes per se, you can only design systems that mitigate "bad" outcomes, with optimal "good" outcomes being the natural result of efficient pathology minimization. Most people tend to design for the outcome they want, rather than minimizing the outcomes they don't want, but only the latter works. Bringing this back to human systems, in a naive analysis you can take any variable, label it "good", and dial it up to eleven with some direct trivial changes. I almost always see it approached this way at a policy level. In a systems level analysis, it never works that way and you have less control of the tradeoffs than you might like as a matter of policy. We suck at human systems because, thus far, we haven't come to terms with the reality that a systems level analysis doesn't let you dictate the absolute values of "good" and "bad" no matter how you define them and controlling the relative values is far from trivial in a systems level analysis. We have tools for approaching this, as some types of engineering require it, but we don't apply it because it doesn't lend itself to the kind of naive analysis people understand and the tools don't allow the kinds of outcomes in human systems we wish we could engineer.
- rumcajz 9y agoI like the way you think. I've wrote a little satire along those lines once: http://250bpm.com/blog:88 http://250bpm.com/blog:88
- paraschopra 9y ago
- gaius 9y agoJust another self-promoting Twitter startup bro. Who is upvoting this complete gibberish? At least that article on the cult guy was interesting...
- akeck 9y agoContrast to Toyota, where, if I recall correctly, VPs are expected to be able to do personally the roles beneath them in the org chart. Also, the application of Lean principles to food banks and other service charities.
- TheCoelacanth 9y agoThere were a couple of recent article from HBR making a similar point[0][1]. They make the point that it is important for leaders to have expertise about the domain that they are leading in. [0] https://hbr.org/2017/11/can-you-be-a-great-leader-without-technical-expertise https://hbr.org/2017/11/can-you-be-a-great-leader-without-te... [1] https://hbr.org/2016/12/if-your-boss-could-do-your-job-youre-more-likely-to-be-happy-at-work https://hbr.org/2016/12/if-your-boss-could-do-your-job-youre...
- neom 9y agoIt's absurd to believe someone can't learn a new way of thinking, even if they are not predisposed to it. Plenty of doctors are also amazing photographers. I've spent my whole career around engineers from the leadership side of the house, and I can firmly say I believe many of them could learn to be wonderful leaders. I think mixing disciplines requires you to switch to child eyes on your other skills, but that's about it. Great leaders are eternally humble (I know nothing), great engineers are eternally arrogant (I know this). There is certainly beautiful in both. :)
- jarjoura 9y agoI think that’s the key point, to learn. So many tech companies make management the only way to continue getting promoted. Then they don’t offer any way for employees to learn how to be a good manager. So they’re left to learn by doing.
- neom 9y agoIt boggles my mind so many great engineers are willing to work for leadership teams that contains nobody who has built organizational structures at scale. It's almost like going in for surgery by the person who made the scalpel.
- CalChris 9y agoI'm not sure what to take away from this article. Yes, Engineers are perhaps bad at solving insoluble problems. 'Leaders' are equally bad at solving soluble problems. However, there are a few things I do know: Engineers can become Leaders (difficult, dicey, possible) Leaders cannot become Engineers (ain't gonna happen)
- Bahamut 9y agoI don’t agree with the assertion that leaders cannot become engineers. I have had leadership experience before even becoming a software engineer through my time in the Marine Corps (infantry), and it has served me well in being able to demonstrate excellence in leadership, as well as in engineering. I have run into other Marines who have similarly succeeded in making the transition. On the flip side, some of the best managers I’ve had were former software engineers. I think overly broad assertions made like in the article do a disservice. I think one’s ability to be successful in either role comes down to one’s own characteristics more than anythig else.
- rafiki6 9y agoManagement is an engineering problem whether we want to admit it or not. It's about maximizing the potential of the people who are working for you. Designing a team is just as much of an engineering problem as building a large scale web service. People will argue and say, but humans are emotional, greedy etc. That to me just sounds like inputs to the optimization problem at hand. How do I get team member x, to produce y for me given that x1,x2,x3 factors? Some of the best executives were formerly great engineers. Engineering is as much a people discipline as it is a technical discipline. This author's article is all over the place and I think that they miss this point entirely. This author doesn't do a good job of actually defining what they think a "good" engineer is to begin with.
- erasemus 9y agoit’s meaningless to say human society had made progress without stating areas that you’re considering and not considering when it comes to assessing such progress Is it meaningless to say that some areas are more worthy of consideration than others? There are reasons why the OP chose infant mortality and education as example areas. Those reasons could be made explicit and examined objectively: for instance to see if they make sense by their own terms. For example is a society that prioritises a certain area able to continue to do that well into the future, or not?
- valuearb 9y agoPhilosophers make terrible judges of engineering managers.
- AstralStorm 9y agoLaconic, I like it. (Yes that is a philosophy.)
- ashleyn 9y ago>This is why despite his IQ, Donald Trump got elected as the president of US. Has this ever been made public?
- wittgenstein 9y agoThe title of this article is click-bait and a complete oversimplification. I'm tired of seeing shit like this in HN and can't believe people are upvoting it.
- Splatter 9y ago> While a leader with an engineering mindset works hard at finding at a better solution, other leaders use their personality, power or charm to persuade people that their solution will be in everyone’s benefits, even if it actually isn’t. This is why despite his IQ, Donald Trump got elected as the president of US. I'm no Trump fan, but have to wonder why, in an article proposing an objective truth, I have to read the author's opinion of Donald Trump -- in this case regarding his IQ. If the author can prove the lowness of Trump's IQ, I'd love to see the objective proof. Otherwise I would suggest the author stick with his main points and not involve his politics. Moreover, it's sickening to me to read the veiled insult of the voters (the "even if it actually isn't" statement) who put Trump in office. Again, perhaps the author would consider sticking with his main thesis and avoid denigration of those with whom he clearly disagrees.
- akkartik 9y agoThis may be country-specific: http://www.economist.com/node/13496638 http://www.economist.com/node/13496638
- ricardobeat 9y agoThis did not make any sense to me. The article does not back its title in any way. Material progress for humanity achieved through technology somehow 'cannot be objectively measured'. Plus some empty statements about engineering being task-executors with no political/planning ability?
- nitwit005 9y agoEngineers, like most professions, contain all the diversity of humanity. The only filter is that the portion of the populace that couldn't attain that level of education, or who can't hold onto a job, aren't included. Sure, there's some commonality in that it's a group that has been exposed to a certain form of thinking, but if you asked people to write their thoughts on solving the poverty problem, I seriously doubt you'd be able to identify the engineers from what they wrote.
- module0000 9y ago>> I seriously doubt you'd be able to identify the engineers from what they wrote. This isn't meant to be funny, but I bet you could identify good engineers from what they wrote rather quickly. What does a good engineer do when they discover a faulty resistor while debugging a circuit? Cut it out, throw it in the trash, and replace it with a working one. They never pause to consider the moral impact of suddenly removing it from the board, attempt to rehabilitate it, or try to empathize with it. They cut it out and move on. If you apply engineering principles to societal problems, the die-hard engineer may come up with a similar result. I'm only speculating, but their line of reasoning could resemble... "these (good productive) citizens do not harm other citizens, and they support their economies through labor and taxes.... discard every other citizen that does not do this, and replace them with a working one". Sounds like a dystopian sci-fi plot to me.
- naasking 9y agoFunny you mention this, I made exactly this argument against the philosophy of hard determinism a few months ago. After all, under hard determinism, people have no more value than any other aggregate of deterministic particles, so why should we even try to reform them as most hard determinists argue? So it's not just engineers that might reach these conclusions.
- roenxi 9y agoAs a society, we have demonstrated a remarkably limited ability to coherently articulate what the problems are. Now, if you can articulate a clear problem, I might be persuaded that engineers as class will solve it a specific way. But my experience is that once a problem is identified anyone could do it. Identifying the problem is the part that generates friction. In the one-line example you came up with, you imply: * Working is good * Economic productivity is the end goal * Possibly a link between morality and citizenship * That 'replacement' based on some unknown process will be legitimate If I am allowed to assume things like that, every human problem becomes easy and I can engineer it. But a 'landslide' in politics is 60% agreement on a subject - assumptions like this do not fly. I, for example, disagree with at least 2 of those points.
- gamechangr 9y agoOf course HN would be a terrible place to make an argument that "good engineers make terrible leaders". Engineers here would just deconstruct it. Anyone see the irony?
- AstralStorm 9y agoAnd leaders will ignore it as baby talk. Or posturing.
- crocal 9y agoLet’s wrap it up. Confuses engineering and science. Reduces engineering activities to closed problems. Thinks science does not successfully offers models for fuzzy systems (<cough> thermodynamics, man </cough>). Puts doubts on the fact that technology enabled human progress above its animal condition. And finally, seems to ignore that the main role of an engineer is to safely /lead/ the work in factory or on construction sites. Really, I have seldom read something so inaccurate, up to the point where I suspect it may have been written on the sole purpose of annoying the HN crowd...
- sytelus 9y agoBad artical paddling completely unsubstantiated theory and making absurd claims - very likely to benefit his own career as non-engineer leader. Author basically rides his argument on one "paper" which also makes out-of-the-thin-air arguments in similar fashion. The central point of the argument is that science is incapable of dealing with complex incompletely specified systems with uncertainties. Then author goes one step ahead and makes a sweeping statement that people who are good at scientific approach have decreased abilities to deal with this kind of problems! On the other hand, so called "leaders" have this natural "charm" to allow them to work with such systems without requiring scientific mindset. He then cites Donald Trump as proof of his argument. In my long career I have actually came across such leaders with natural "charm" and I can attest that chances of have them destruct the project is much higher than a leader with engineering background. So the conclusion is that if person is less scientific then better chance that he would be good leader. I think author has time travelled from 500 BC and is not aware of entire fields of complexity theory, chaos, probability, statistics. He is probably also unaware that virtually every major leader from Alexander to JFK have used science to win their wars and had fairly good understanding and ability to naturally apply those methods to their problems. No need to waste your time in reading this BS.
- anonacct37 9y agoPeople who try to box engineers into some sort of hyper-rational over-simplified box to separate them from real world messy problems are silly. I suspect the underlying reason is that once you start measuring things, you tend to learn thing fast and that typically shakes up the status quo in a way that disciplines "far away" from the hard sciences aren't emotionally ready for. You don't question their sacred cows. Let me give you a software example which shows how basically even the "tamest" seeming problem in software engineering is pretty "wicked", requiring some of the same skills you'd use to tackle a social issue. Is website A faster than website B? What do we mean by fast? Sure we agree we can use a clock, and to bucket relativistic effects we can talk about things on planet earth. So if you're sitting there in front of a computer with a clock, what should you measure to tell if website A is faster than website B? The answer is nobody really knows but some answers seem better than others. The most simplistic measure is to measure the time from when a request is sent to when the last byte of the response is received. But once we have a number we have to ask what it means in terms of "faster" and if it's the right number. Some single page apps these days are really fast by that measure. They just give you a static shell, that would sure beat the pants off just about any other webpage download. Of course for single page apps giving you a static shell, the initial download is not the end, but the beginning. They start to load css and javascript and images, etc. We might say that page download time is a poor metric because if I'm some poor schmuck trying to visit a page, the time that the html took to download doesn't really mean anything to me. For a while people thought time to first byte was more interesting. Of course it really means nothing, but in some cases, for a short while (streaming pages from jsps, etc) before mvc became the predominant paradigm, a good ttfb was correlated with sending some html that the browser could get to work on, allowing it to render content sooner, which seemed like a good thing. Do you see the wickedness here? In order to even tackle the problem we have to invent measures and targets, even though this is a "tame problem" with a objective stopwatch for measuring. We kind of "knew" the right measurement was one that the human interacting with the web page would intuitively understand as "website A is fast". How long until they could see the page, how long until they could "touch" it and interact with it? As people started doing more javascript, the approximation of TTFB stopped being as useful. There were easy things to measure, domready and page loaded. Dom ready meant that a page had loaded enough for javascript to begin interacting with a "complete" document. So almost by definition it wasn't a good measure since it marks the beginning of the lifecyle of an AJAX app or client side mvc or single page app or whatever we're calling it next week. Content loaded often was too conservative of a measure. It didn't fire until the last image had downloaded and rendered. That could be below the fold and as they say: "out of sight out of mind". So at this point if we want to answer the question: "is website A faster than website B?" we only know the real answer is somewhere between 2 numbers. Of course facebook cheated. They attached event handlers to the body pre-domloaded that just appended events to a Array (queue) so that people could see a button and click on it and even though the "app" wasn't done rendering, you could say: "a customer could see the page and interact with it without those interactions being lost". So if we want to measure "when can I see a webpage and start interacting with it?" it's a pretty tough question that might not have an answer. The best we can do is say: "you loaded a web page at time t0 and at time t1 you performed an action and it (did|did not) work. We could compare those 2 things... if the action was something you could do on both websites. You can make videos of websites rendering and visually compare them. I've spent my career as a performance engineer and I don't really know how to, in the general case, answer the question: "is website A faster than website B". In specific cases it's sometimes clear. For example I could visit a static html page with no buttons and say: "it was definitely loaded in 50ms" and then visit some monstrosity of a single page app that displays a loading screen for several seconds and conclude: "the static webpage was faster than the app". But I'm sure designing a bridge is sooo much simpler and there's no ambiguity there. Right?
- satyajeet23 9y agoCausality and Correlation.