4 ms·

I review the Joel Test occasionally, even if some of the items are kinda dated. It's amusing how both big companies and startups consistently fail two of them (

by Jach 8y ago

I review the Joel Test occasionally, even if some of the items are kinda dated. It's amusing how both big companies and startups consistently fail two of them (and the test says if you're at 10/12 or lower there are serious problems). 8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions? 9. Do you use the best tools money can buy? Startups could out-compete larger companies here by providing both shared working space and private space, but they don't. Similarly for one of the tools, development hardware, if all you're providing is a macbook pro and maybe a monitor... well I'm sure Apple will significantly upgrade it any year now. Meanwhile those of us who like Linux distros (or, god forbid, Windows after disabling all the crap) can have quite a bit of power on the go. My current (big) co gives everyone a desktop and a laptop, it's nice to have both. You might quibble if they fully pass #9, but at least they make an attempt. "... programmers are easily bribed by giving them the coolest, latest stuff. This is a far cheaper way to get them to work for you than actually paying competitive salaries!" Salaries are such a hot topic, startups unable to match need to differentiate from what the big players are doing in a better way across many dimensions at once, not solely the nebulous "more control of the product direction". https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-steps-to-better-code/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-s...

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I was just writing a comment on here the other day about whether there should be a “Paul Graham test” based mostly on the essays “Great Hackers” and “Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule.” The unequivocal importance of private offices is mentioned in both (in the latter, it’s focused on how meetings swiss-cheesify the day, but the point is obviously the same as that of private offices vs. open plan interruptions.) So it remains a mystery why Y Combinator and YC-backed companies, so informed by many of Graham’s viewpoints, aren’t more proactive about this.
hello_moto 8y ago
"... programmers are easily bribed by giving them the coolest, latest stuff. This is a far cheaper way to get them to work for you than actually paying competitive salaries!" Past time (20 years ago) programmers yes. Today's programmers? No. The Math is very simple: if a company throws a lot of money, I can buy the latest coolest stuff for the next 10 years. I doubt programmer is that gullible (otherwise they're probably a "Yes" man).
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  You'd be surprised. Many programmers don't negotiate, don't ask for severance or bonuses or better acceleration/vesting terms etc., feel afraid to be rejected after completing interviews, and a lot of people end up working for far lower pay than they could have otherwise gotten. I've known a lot of people who joined start-ups because they were promised various things (freedom to work on X, guarantee of publishing research, attending conferences, etc.) and then 6 months later they feel miserable that they accepted lower pay and none of the promises turned out to be true (sometimes through no intentional fault of the start-up founders, but sometimes through complete bait and switch shenanigans). The risk that start-ups won't follow through on ambiguous work promises is super high, yet people keep falling for it year after year.
- gaius 8y ago
  Past time (20 years ago) programmers yes. Today's programmers? No. The economics of hardware are very different now. In the 90s you might have a SPARCstation or an SGI on your desk at work, amazing gear you could never have afforded for yourself. Now you can easily buy a home PC that’s better than any corporate model. I’m sure it’s still true in some industries, 3D printing maybe, but not in software anymore.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
> Startups could out-compete larger companies here by providing both shared working space and private space, but they don't. i agree that they should do that. OTOH space isn't cheap. i recall a scrappy startup where 20 people were packed inside a live-work loft. the CEO's office was the master bathroom.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  Not every start-up could afford it, sure. But by the time you are well-capitalized, it’s not an excuse, and as Stack Overflow has shown, it’s not that hard to afford even in Manhattan. When young start-ups are spending millions on the company’s third wave coffee station and opulent roof deck for obligatory alcohol drenched happy hours, you know it’s not cost keeping them from prioritizing ergonomy-focused private & quiet work space.

by Jach 8y ago

mlthoughts2018 8y ago

I was just writing a comment on here the other day about whether there should be a “Paul Graham test” based mostly on the essays “Great Hackers” and “Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule.” The unequivocal importance of private offices is mentioned in both (in the latter, it’s focused on how meetings swiss-cheesify the day, but the point is obviously the same as that of private offices vs. open plan interruptions.) So it remains a mystery why Y Combinator and YC-backed companies, so informed by many of Graham’s viewpoints, aren’t more proactive about this.

hello_moto 8y ago

"... programmers are easily bribed by giving them the coolest, latest stuff. This is a far cheaper way to get them to work for you than actually paying competitive salaries!" Past time (20 years ago) programmers yes. Today's programmers? No. The Math is very simple: if a company throws a lot of money, I can buy the latest coolest stuff for the next 10 years. I doubt programmer is that gullible (otherwise they're probably a "Yes" man).

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
You'd be surprised. Many programmers don't negotiate, don't ask for severance or bonuses or better acceleration/vesting terms etc., feel afraid to be rejected after completing interviews, and a lot of people end up working for far lower pay than they could have otherwise gotten. I've known a lot of people who joined start-ups because they were promised various things (freedom to work on X, guarantee of publishing research, attending conferences, etc.) and then 6 months later they feel miserable that they accepted lower pay and none of the promises turned out to be true (sometimes through no intentional fault of the start-up founders, but sometimes through complete bait and switch shenanigans). The risk that start-ups won't follow through on ambiguous work promises is super high, yet people keep falling for it year after year.
gaius 8y ago
Past time (20 years ago) programmers yes. Today's programmers? No. The economics of hardware are very different now. In the 90s you might have a SPARCstation or an SGI on your desk at work, amazing gear you could never have afforded for yourself. Now you can easily buy a home PC that’s better than any corporate model. I’m sure it’s still true in some industries, 3D printing maybe, but not in software anymore.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

> Startups could out-compete larger companies here by providing both shared working space and private space, but they don't. i agree that they should do that. OTOH space isn't cheap. i recall a scrappy startup where 20 people were packed inside a live-work loft. the CEO's office was the master bathroom.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Not every start-up could afford it, sure. But by the time you are well-capitalized, it’s not an excuse, and as Stack Overflow has shown, it’s not that hard to afford even in Manhattan. When young start-ups are spending millions on the company’s third wave coffee station and opulent roof deck for obligatory alcohol drenched happy hours, you know it’s not cost keeping them from prioritizing ergonomy-focused private & quiet work space.