4 ms·
I thought I recognised that, and indeed it is taken partly from http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/
by jeroen 18y ago
I thought I recognised that, and indeed it is taken partly from http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html . The original is a bit more detailed.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- Andys 18y agoThe last couple of paragraphs are new, and are worth reading even if you read the original. Brought a smile to my face.
- midnightmonster 18y agoThe original is better--the order of the story and the emotion both work better. Probably has to do with trying to dumb down, sound more professional, and remove the swearing for Inc readers. Joel's Inc Magazine columns compared to his blog writing have pretty much convinced me not to subscribe to Inc..
- mynameishere 18y agoJoel's Inc Magazine columns compared to his blog writing Most of his articles have been inferior re-writes, to the point that I'm not sure why nobody at Inc. has caught on. Maybe they don't care, but I'd be pissed.
- hernan7 18y agoMaybe they think Inc and Joel On Software have mostly non-overlapping readerships?
- jcl 18y agoI thought it was funny that they merged the closing "Still." paragraph into the preceding one, changing the meaning -- from hesitant ("Still, I wonder if he could have been talking about me.") to bitter ("He's still talking about those other Excel devs!").
- simonw 18y agoI imagine Inc. has a word limit on articles so they can fit them in the magazine. If so, there's not a lot Joel can do to keep his columns for Inc. as informative as the essays he publishes on his site without any length restriction.