3 ms·

> I, personally, don't like to kill my babies. I do. Software isn't my progeny or legacy. It is the tools in my workshop. If I can use one tool to do the work

> I, personally, don't like to kill my babies. I do. Software isn't my progeny or legacy. It is the tools in my workshop. If I can use one tool to do the work of five, I'll gladly downsize to declutter and simply my life. Finding self-worth in the longevity of tools is an emotional anti-pattern.

deong 8y ago
I think you're taking him a bit too literally. In these examples, you're not looking at simplifying anything. You're not getting rid of unneeded code. You're getting rid of debugged and stable code in favor of writing something new from scratch because fuck all knows why.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  In this case, worst case, it's multiple groups of engineers all advocating for their pet projects. They can all be wrong and concerned about personal sunk costs instead of having some perspective and humility and working together to the extent it makes sense. I gather maybe the Google advancement structure discourages doing nothing and generally being stable when it makes sense, in which case there could be plenty of improvement to be had all around.
  - deong 8y ago
    Oddly enough, I assume the Google advancement structure values anything but stability. You launch products to get promoted. Maintaining them is for fools and losers. Granted, I have no inside information. That just fits the externally observable information and the tiny amount of corporate politics that occasionally makes its way public.
SwellJoe 8y ago
So, what part of Google's chat strategy fits your description of "downsize to declutter and simplify"? Google has had something like...seven(?) chat and chat-like projects, and each new iteration of "let's kill the most popular chat product we have" seems to result in several new chat-like things, most of which fail and many of which are weirdly complicated and/or confusingly branded/messaged.
- humanrebar 8y ago
  I was agreeing with your point. It seems pretty obvious that the end goal is something simpler for both the engineer and the end user. The defensiveness of some engineers to protect their particular contributions is a net negative.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    It seems pretty obvious that the end goal is something simpler for both the engineer and the end user. I don't mean to be short, but...based on what evidence?

deong 8y ago

I think you're taking him a bit too literally. In these examples, you're not looking at simplifying anything. You're not getting rid of unneeded code. You're getting rid of debugged and stable code in favor of writing something new from scratch because fuck all knows why.

humanrebar 8y ago
In this case, worst case, it's multiple groups of engineers all advocating for their pet projects. They can all be wrong and concerned about personal sunk costs instead of having some perspective and humility and working together to the extent it makes sense. I gather maybe the Google advancement structure discourages doing nothing and generally being stable when it makes sense, in which case there could be plenty of improvement to be had all around.
- deong 8y ago
  Oddly enough, I assume the Google advancement structure values anything but stability. You launch products to get promoted. Maintaining them is for fools and losers. Granted, I have no inside information. That just fits the externally observable information and the tiny amount of corporate politics that occasionally makes its way public.

SwellJoe 8y ago

So, what part of Google's chat strategy fits your description of "downsize to declutter and simplify"? Google has had something like...seven(?) chat and chat-like projects, and each new iteration of "let's kill the most popular chat product we have" seems to result in several new chat-like things, most of which fail and many of which are weirdly complicated and/or confusingly branded/messaged.

humanrebar 8y ago
I was agreeing with your point. It seems pretty obvious that the end goal is something simpler for both the engineer and the end user. The defensiveness of some engineers to protect their particular contributions is a net negative.
- rhizome 8y ago
  It seems pretty obvious that the end goal is something simpler for both the engineer and the end user. I don't mean to be short, but...based on what evidence?