2 ms·
Exactly, a classic 95:95 scenario. You can build 95% of the functionality for yourself pretty quickly but getting it to work for 20+ people will end up constitu
by pkdpic 5y ago
Exactly, a classic 95:95 scenario. You can build 95% of the functionality for yourself pretty quickly but getting it to work for 20+ people will end up constituting 95% of the total labor if you choose to do it. There has to be a serious reason to take that on. If nobody's asking for it it doesn't feel like a smart use of company time or personal energy. Thats been my approach at my current company and it's kept me in a pretty positive / non-toxic place with the rest of our staff so far.
That said the original comment doesn't seem to be coming at this purely from an angle of practicality.
- runevault 5y agoThat is a fair counterpoint. For me it was pointing out there are reasons not to do it that isn't simply being selfish. If a company wants to invest in tooling (a smart thing to do, one of the appeals of Google beyond their comp is they invest in state of the art in house tooling) they should pay staff who's primary job is in the creation and maintenance of tools to increase developer productivity/satisfaction/etc.