5 ms·
A large part of this is shitty engineering and product development. These products could be made so much better, but they suck instead.
by TomMarius 9y ago
A large part of this is shitty engineering and product development. These products could be made so much better, but they suck instead.
- meuk 9y agoTrue, but it is also the price to pay when you use technology. You can't test everything. The TV, for example, is a new model from a big, quality brand (and in general it works well). Likewise, Call of Duty (the game that requires internet even if you play offline - not sure if this holds for all games in the series) is not a small title. So if these products by big companies have that shitty engineering, then most products with the same functionality probably will have similar problems.
- TomMarius 9y agoFrom what I've seen while working for large companies, the problem is most likely incompetence and/or quality not being a priority.
- acdha 9y agoIt’s important not to excuse the business decisions behind that incompetence: someone knew about the problem and figured you’d buy it anyway because of marketing or everyone else cutting the same corners.
- TomMarius 9y agoAgain, from my personal experience, most of the time the decision maker doesn't know there is a problem or that it could possibly be improved.
- Piskvorrr 9y agoOr rather "fixing the problem would take time and money. Nah, just ship it."
- TomMarius 9y agoNot really. Usually the developers and mid managers are doing this to themselves, they say something like "we can't tell him or he will fire us" and the decision maker is not aware of any problems. What happens when I step in is that I tell them what problems do they really have and most of the time the decision maker really wants to fix them and isn't going to fire anyone (except for the incompetent mid-managers that caused these issues).
- dozzie 9y agoYou'd need tremendous amounts of engineering for all those not to suck. And engineering that's done by really experienced people. Too bad that people desiging the "smart" part are from the same IT industry that thinks 3 or 5 years of experience qualifies as "senior".
- rootlocus 9y agoCan I quote you from another post? > It's not really that difficult to learn six languages to a level of using them professionally. I've seen it happen. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16458513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16458513
- dozzie 9y agoOh, of course you can quote me. Though you should also explain how is this particular quote of any relevance here.
- rootlocus 9y agoI believe using a language "professionally" means being senior. Which is different from having a profession where you use said language. On the one hand you're arguing you can't become "Senior" in 5 years, but at the same time you can become professional with 6 languages with little effort.
- TomMarius 9y agoYou can be a professional developer that is on junior level.
- rootlocus 9y ago"Professionals have standards"
- daveFNbuck 9y agoYour definition doesn't make sense. I've been labeled a "Senior Software Engineer". Does that mean that any time I write code in any language I'm using it professionally, while people who have been paid to write the same language for years but don't have senior in their title aren't using it professionally?