3 ms·

> What walkways? Well Fred made a good case for walkways and they’re going to add to the bridge’s appeal. That "walkways on a bridge" are an outlandish idea te

> What walkways? Well Fred made a good case for walkways and they’re going to add to the bridge’s appeal. That "walkways on a bridge" are an outlandish idea tells you all you really need to know about the article and the author. I actually have a fairly low opinion about the state of the IT industry. But neither accessibility features you personally won't use, nor programming art projects, nor occasionally whimsical industry jargon are the reason why. Also, if you think there's an electrical engineer out there who never built something nonsensical for the sake of it... In fact I propose two big reasons why the IT industry is like it is: 1. many IT projects serve questionable means. If I work on a bridge, there's a good chance I think there's a use for it beyond making money to someone. Many programmers don't have that "luxury", and it's hard to care about the end user experience if the programs ultimate goal is to screw the user over. 2. IT industry is full of toxic people like the author of this article. Perhaps because of 1.

FreezerburnV 8y ago
That is an... odd location to try and latch on to in order to say that the writer is toxic in the industry for multiple reasons: 1) While the author didn’t claim walkways are bad, there are many bridges designed for American rush hour traffic that do not include them because nothing surrounding the bridge would allow for someone to walk on them. Aka: there are only non-walkable highways entering or exiting the bridge. 2) Non-wood brushes don’t have wooden walkways added to them. They use concrete and steel like the rest of the bridge. 3) A walkway would be absurd without railings, which are dictated as not being something available to add. Literally a lawsuit waiting to happen. So yes, in the case being outline as an allegory for this profession, a walkway added to the bridge because someone made a case for it would be bad. And has nothing to do with adding accessibility to it, which would be a good thing to do if the bridge were somewhere that said feature made sense. (I’m probably going way too serious mode for this reply, but it was sticking in my craw, so I felt a need to get these thoughts out there)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
fouc 8y ago
I think you need to re-read the article, try to get past the allegorical beginning. The author is a software developer like you and me. If you've worked with a team to build software, you know that everyone's got their own ideas or someone wants to use the hottest new tool or programming language of the day. If nobody is careful, then after awhile the team might have a really confusing tech stack with major parts in totally different implementations, even if that didn't happen, everyone's got their own preferred approaches for organizing code, etc. It's always turning into a hodgepodge if there's no discipline.

FreezerburnV 8y ago

That is an... odd location to try and latch on to in order to say that the writer is toxic in the industry for multiple reasons: 1) While the author didn’t claim walkways are bad, there are many bridges designed for American rush hour traffic that do not include them because nothing surrounding the bridge would allow for someone to walk on them. Aka: there are only non-walkable highways entering or exiting the bridge. 2) Non-wood brushes don’t have wooden walkways added to them. They use concrete and steel like the rest of the bridge. 3) A walkway would be absurd without railings, which are dictated as not being something available to add. Literally a lawsuit waiting to happen. So yes, in the case being outline as an allegory for this profession, a walkway added to the bridge because someone made a case for it would be bad. And has nothing to do with adding accessibility to it, which would be a good thing to do if the bridge were somewhere that said feature made sense. (I’m probably going way too serious mode for this reply, but it was sticking in my craw, so I felt a need to get these thoughts out there)

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

fouc 8y ago

I think you need to re-read the article, try to get past the allegorical beginning. The author is a software developer like you and me. If you've worked with a team to build software, you know that everyone's got their own ideas or someone wants to use the hottest new tool or programming language of the day. If nobody is careful, then after awhile the team might have a really confusing tech stack with major parts in totally different implementations, even if that didn't happen, everyone's got their own preferred approaches for organizing code, etc. It's always turning into a hodgepodge if there's no discipline.