3 ms·

> You can't just arrive with one specific feature pulled out of thin air 6 years later and claim that if it is not easy than the system architects were incompet

> You can't just arrive with one specific feature pulled out of thin air 6 years later and claim that if it is not easy than the system architects were incompetent. The problem is easy. Seriously, it really is. Most of the programmers here have probably done something almost exactly like it ten or more times in their relatively short careers; I know I have. There is no real intrinsic difficulty to the problem. I'm not saying that the programmers are 37signals were incompetent. I'm saying that I have do not trust that they are competent. I have no reason, especially in the face of this evidence, to believe that they're competent. They made a successful software product: so have lots of other programmers of questionable competency. The fact remains that at least in this example, one of their programmers points at an intrinsically easy problem and says, "This is really hard because I'd have to do a lot of stuff that I really shouldn't have to do" except he doesn't seem to realize that he shouldn't have do those things. So tell me, in face of that obvious fact, why should I trust 37signals' engineers' competence?

dasil003 16y ago
The problem is easy. Seriously, it really is. It's easy in the simplified mental model that you have constructed devoid of real world context. Any engineer worth their salt knows the devil's in the details. I'm going to stop arguing now because you're not even responding to my actual argument. It's not a zen thing, you should be able to get it if you actually read my comments, but just in case you need a koan, ponder this fact that I would bet my life savings on: There exists a potential feature which could be implemented in Basecamp faster than in your product (and vice versa).
- jemfinch 16y ago
  > It's easy in the simplified mental model that you have constructed devoid of real world context. I constructed my mental model based on the detailed description by a BaseCamp engineer of what he'd have to do in order to solve the problem in his system! > I'm going to stop arguing now because you're not even responding to my actual argument. Welcome to my world: you've been arguing this whole time as if I were claiming that BaseCamp engineers were incompetent when I've only been saying that I don't trust that they are competent. > There exists a potential feature which could be implemented in Basecamp faster than in your product (and vice versa). There are probably many such features. That's really beside the point, unless you're claiming some additional knowledge here that the decisions made in this particular design contributed to the ease of those potential features. If you're only assuming that because you trust the competence of 37signals, your entire argument is circular and depends on the very claim I'm contesting.
  - dasil003 16y ago
    Welcome to my world: you've been arguing this whole time as if I were claiming that BaseCamp engineers were incompetent when I've only been saying that I don't trust that they are competent. Do you realize how weaselly that is? What does that mean? Connotatively it takes a huge swipe at the 37s team without actually making any commitment. You might as well have said nothing at all if you're not going to take a real stand.
    - jemfinch 16y ago
      > Do you realize how weaselly that is? What does that mean? There's a distinct difference between saying that you know someone is incompetent, and saying that you don't know that someone is competent. It's the same as the difference between agnosticism and atheism. What I am also saying, and what you're probably really arguing with, is that the linked article constitutes evidence against 37s' competence. That's still very different than saying that it shows that they're incompetent, which is how you've been mischaracterizing my posts.
      - dasil003 16y ago
        There's a distinct difference between saying that you know someone is incompetent, and saying that you don't know that someone is competent. It's the same as the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Understood, but it's still weaselly because you're offhandedly casting aspersions on a group of people's ability ("I have no reason to believe those people are competent") and then pretending like it doesn't hurt their reputation because of the exact words you spoke ("I never said they were incompetent, just that I have no reason to believe they are competent"). Agnosticism vs atheism, while logically the same distinction does not have this libelous aspect to it.

dasil003 16y ago

The problem is easy. Seriously, it really is. It's easy in the simplified mental model that you have constructed devoid of real world context. Any engineer worth their salt knows the devil's in the details. I'm going to stop arguing now because you're not even responding to my actual argument. It's not a zen thing, you should be able to get it if you actually read my comments, but just in case you need a koan, ponder this fact that I would bet my life savings on: There exists a potential feature which could be implemented in Basecamp faster than in your product (and vice versa).

jemfinch 16y ago
> It's easy in the simplified mental model that you have constructed devoid of real world context. I constructed my mental model based on the detailed description by a BaseCamp engineer of what he'd have to do in order to solve the problem in his system! > I'm going to stop arguing now because you're not even responding to my actual argument. Welcome to my world: you've been arguing this whole time as if I were claiming that BaseCamp engineers were incompetent when I've only been saying that I don't trust that they are competent. > There exists a potential feature which could be implemented in Basecamp faster than in your product (and vice versa). There are probably many such features. That's really beside the point, unless you're claiming some additional knowledge here that the decisions made in this particular design contributed to the ease of those potential features. If you're only assuming that because you trust the competence of 37signals, your entire argument is circular and depends on the very claim I'm contesting.
- dasil003 16y ago
  Welcome to my world: you've been arguing this whole time as if I were claiming that BaseCamp engineers were incompetent when I've only been saying that I don't trust that they are competent. Do you realize how weaselly that is? What does that mean? Connotatively it takes a huge swipe at the 37s team without actually making any commitment. You might as well have said nothing at all if you're not going to take a real stand.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    > Do you realize how weaselly that is? What does that mean? There's a distinct difference between saying that you know someone is incompetent, and saying that you don't know that someone is competent. It's the same as the difference between agnosticism and atheism. What I am also saying, and what you're probably really arguing with, is that the linked article constitutes evidence against 37s' competence. That's still very different than saying that it shows that they're incompetent, which is how you've been mischaracterizing my posts.
    - dasil003 16y ago
      There's a distinct difference between saying that you know someone is incompetent, and saying that you don't know that someone is competent. It's the same as the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Understood, but it's still weaselly because you're offhandedly casting aspersions on a group of people's ability ("I have no reason to believe those people are competent") and then pretending like it doesn't hurt their reputation because of the exact words you spoke ("I never said they were incompetent, just that I have no reason to believe they are competent"). Agnosticism vs atheism, while logically the same distinction does not have this libelous aspect to it.