4 ms·
The article is based on the assumption that what developers absolutely need are the overengineered and bureaucratic tools of a big monopoly company wealthy enou
by throwaway4good 6y ago
The article is based on the assumption that what developers absolutely need are the overengineered and bureaucratic tools of a big monopoly company wealthy enough to hire the absolutely best for even the most menial task.
- throwaway4good 6y agoWhat are the tools used in the most cash-strapped companies facing fierce competition yet prevailing?
- tsjq 6y agoVim, gcc, notepad++, python, mspaint, libre office, gimp,
- cowsandmilk 6y agoFor some of the things mentioned, got pull. If I want to jump around to see how a function is defined or used, I don’t need to be able to click in the web interface like you can in Critique. Pulling the code locally and using the open source tools I’m already used to works even better.
- Quarrelsome 6y agoyou're assuming the egg is after the chicken. There's a lot to argue for in stating that orgs should create tools to increase the volition of their devs.
- andrewem 6y agoI agree with what I think is your argument that “bureaucratic” tools used at a company with many thousands of engineers aren’t necessarily appropriate for a much smaller company. For example, the system of ownership by directory in a monorepo alluded to in other comments is unnecessary if you have a handful of engineers or a few dozen. Or the system like their “readability” reviews that you can read about elsewhere online (eg https://www.pullrequest.com/blog/google-code-review-readability-certification/ https://www.pullrequest.com/blog/google-code-review-readabil...) It’s when you get to a bigger size that you (probably) need to worry these cases.