3 ms·
That’s just apologia for NIH syndrome. It’s fine to reinvent software if that serves your goals. It’s short-sighted to reinvent software without due considerati
by klodolph 7y ago
That’s just apologia for NIH syndrome. It’s fine to reinvent software if that serves your goals. It’s short-sighted to reinvent software without due consideration for whether off-the-shelf solutions work. That’s not de-risking, that’s adding risk and slowing development. You see it happen at companies like that and usually it’s a sign that there’s something wrong with the culture, incentives, and the way that promotions work.
My take on it is that the engineers want to make complicated solutions to hard problems to justify their salaries and get promoted, and that managers encourage that behavior so they can defend their headcount. I’m not accusing any of these people of acting in bad faith here—nobody’s reinventing tech to sabotage the company, it’s just that the system encourages this kind of behavior.
This problem is not unique to Uber, you’ll see similar things happen across the industry to different degrees.
- jeffbee 7y agoWell, the "due consideration" needs to duly consider the actual costs and benefits of the off-the-shelf software, not make the kind of unsupported blanket claims about its obvious superiority, like you just did. Every off-the-shelf program has maintenance costs, flaws, and weak fitness for purpose. You just made a sweeping and italicized claim that all off-the-shelf software is both less risky and faster to develop than house-made software. That's a dangerous philosophy and probably isn't true for every organization and application.
- klodolph 7y ago> …not make the kind of unsupported blanket claims about its obvious superiority, like you just did… Not what I said. Let’s move on. > That's a dangerous philosophy… Go pick a fight with someone else.