3 ms·
> We didn’t have any mad geniuses building everything from scratch. But our productivity was never higher. Of course, since "productivity" in software is compl
by commandlinefan 6y ago
> We didn’t have any mad geniuses building everything from scratch. But our productivity was never higher.
Of course, since "productivity" in software is completely subjective, every claim of higher productivity attributable to whatever cause is by definition correct.
- lolsal 6y agoIs it totally subjective? Can't you measure feature delivery velocity? I can look at delivered velocity for engineers and see trends over 10+ sprints.
- jimbokun 6y agoWhat if one feature is 100x more valuable than the others?
- lolsal 6y agoI don't evaluate engineers on feature value, only velocity and quality. If the product owners ask for it, that's what we're doing. It's not the engineers fault if some features don't fit the market and some fit really well.
- Slartie 6y agoOnly if you assume features are equal in terms of necessary effort and value (they aren't) and never leave technical debt behind for later cleanup (they do) or at least leave behind the exact same amounts of debt regardless of the implementation path chosen (they don't).
- lolsal 6y ago> Only if you assume features are equal in terms of necessary effort and value (they aren't) This is why we use story points and velocity, not time. > and never leave technical debt behind for later cleanup (they do) What does this have to do with anything? We do this all the time and capture this sort of thing for our backlog. > or at least leave behind the exact same amounts of debt regardless of the implementation path chosen (they don't). So? tech debt is tech debt and it's a bear regardless. I don't know why you're being so aggressive with the gotchas, but if you think it's impossible to objectively measure engineer quality I don't know what to tell you and I wish you good luck in your hiring and career growth.