4 ms·

So you would've spent company time rewriting working code to match your personal aesthetics? Sounds like parent didn't have a reasonable structure in place to

by blyry 6y ago

So you would've spent company time rewriting working code to match your personal aesthetics? Sounds like parent didn't have a reasonable structure in place to generate consensus amongst the org about stylistic preferences vs tech debt, and where developer priorities should lie. There's some ego in both of your comments as well. Async is nicer looking that promise chains, but there risk in changing working code, no? Growing with an org means letting go of your old code but joining an org requires empathy and understanding for the old timers and their code babies as well!

5874-4b22-a4e0 6y ago
We are literally paid to browse hacker news, day trade for a greater portion of the day, and somehow making the codebase more aesthetically pleasing is an issue?
nurettin 6y ago
I assume you are looking at things for a living. And from your corporate tone, so are your coworkers. We all want to look at good things. Promise chains were bad things. When I see bad things, I am willing to make the change. So should you. And we should ask before we change. GP was caught off-guard. That is not what we want. We good?
- blyry 6y ago
  We good > corporate tone oof, maybe not wrong though. I don't look at things for a living, I trade time for money with the expectation that my time has a multiplier on revenue, profit, and team health/productivity. I guess I've seen enough legacy code at this point that I don't have any desire to change it just because there's something better, changing stuff that works has to be a reasonable balance between tech debt/maintenance/quality of life things, vs features/uptime/performance. Of all those things, features make the most money right? So why would I want to spend time refactoring things when I could make measurable, incremental improvements somewhere else? Spend all day in the same system? Sure. Drive by refactorings? Absolutely not.

by blyry 6y ago

5874-4b22-a4e0 6y ago

We are literally paid to browse hacker news, day trade for a greater portion of the day, and somehow making the codebase more aesthetically pleasing is an issue?

nurettin 6y ago

I assume you are looking at things for a living. And from your corporate tone, so are your coworkers. We all want to look at good things. Promise chains were bad things. When I see bad things, I am willing to make the change. So should you. And we should ask before we change. GP was caught off-guard. That is not what we want. We good?

blyry 6y ago
We good > corporate tone oof, maybe not wrong though. I don't look at things for a living, I trade time for money with the expectation that my time has a multiplier on revenue, profit, and team health/productivity. I guess I've seen enough legacy code at this point that I don't have any desire to change it just because there's something better, changing stuff that works has to be a reasonable balance between tech debt/maintenance/quality of life things, vs features/uptime/performance. Of all those things, features make the most money right? So why would I want to spend time refactoring things when I could make measurable, incremental improvements somewhere else? Spend all day in the same system? Sure. Drive by refactorings? Absolutely not.