3 ms·
> “She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” wrote one Facebook engineer, referring to a term used by the engineering team to describe how data is structured in
by tablespoon 5y ago
> “She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” wrote one Facebook engineer, referring to a term used by the engineering team to describe how data is structured in computer programming. He said all of her testimony should be disqualified.
This is a magnificent illustration of the bizarre arrogance some developers have about programming in relation to other disciplines (though usually not this ridiculous degree).
Every software engineering and computer science program should have a "don't be that guy," module where this quote is studied.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tablespoon 5y agoIn reply to a now deleted child comment, since I'd already finished writing it: >> “She didn’t know how basic stacks worked,” > Is it clear that the engineer is talking about the stack data structure vs. the tech stack? Yes, given the way the quote is phrased, it's a stretch beyond reason to interpret "basic stacks" as "tech stack." Furthermore, their comment would have still been clueless even if they were referring to "tech stacks." There's a lot of wrongness there to unpack, but one element is the assumption that low-level technical implementation knowledge is a requirement for a valid higher level understanding. That's as foolish as "disqualifying" biologists because they haven't passed a course in quantum mechanics. Whether this thing was built on the LAMP stack, something with Java, or some bespoke thing is completely irrelevant to understanding the effect it has on people and society, which is the only thing at issue here.