4 ms·
Developers can always not implement those.
by tpxl 6y ago
Developers can always not implement those.
- cecja 6y agoDevelopers can always not have a job.
- squiggleblaz 6y agoMeta: This comment was dead a moment ago. Now it's alive and shows no indication of being voted down. How do comments become undead? Are some people still able to vote on them?
- ForHackernews 6y agoIf you have enough reputation you can "vouch" for dead comments. As far as I can see, it at least temporarily resurrects them (perhaps if enough people "vouch").
- squiggleblaz 6y agoOh I see, it makes sense, thanks.
- tpxl 6y agoThere are literally thousands of dev jobs where doing stupid shit is not a requirement.
- cecja 6y agoYou are talking out of your bubble. Especially in the worlds IT sweatshops there is no alternative.
- squiggleblaz 6y agoThat doesn't put the primary fault onto devs though. There is a significant amount of pressure to actually build all these stupid systems coming from multiple fronts (e.g. people who believe it is more secure, business who demand certain features). Surely primary responsibility goes to the person who demands the feature. If one developer refuses, they can find another developer without too much difficulty. It would require most developers to refuse, whereas it only requires a few business owners to make other choices. (Senior Developers could probably respond "here's some better ways". But Junior devs often hardly know their own name, let alone what better alternatives there are to this security theatre.)
- tpxl 6y ago>That doesn't put the primary fault onto devs though I agree on that, the primary fault is at the hands of the one who thought that up and pushed it through to completion, but "just doing my job" and "if I don't do it someone else will" doesn't pass the smell test to me.