3 ms·

You’re not unpacking anything in what I said, you’re just disagreeing with each point, and each disagreement is mostly rooted in a misunderstanding of what I’m

You’re not unpacking anything in what I said, you’re just disagreeing with each point, and each disagreement is mostly rooted in a misunderstanding of what I’m saying. My point is that the code, and all it’s material constructs that you pointed out (loops, allocation etc), do not exist apart from the business, because it’s the only reason those things exist in the first place. I’m not sure how much experience you have, but if you have enough, you should know how easy it is for an engineering team to become disconnected with the goals of the company. I’ve seen devs waste literal months on things that, had the primary stakeholders known about it, they’d never have agreed to. Now, you could look at that situation and envy the job security. Sure you could just see yourself as just a cog in the machine, with no responsibility whatsoever in wondering why the fuck you’re doing what you’re doing. But I certainly would not hire you.

michaelcampbell 4y ago
> Sure you could just see yourself as just a cog in the machine, with no responsibility whatsoever in wondering why the fuck you’re doing what you’re doing. But I certainly would not hire you. But there are lots, and LOTS of people who would, and want EXACTLY THAT. They want people to be told what to do, and do it, and not question why.
- danielvaughn 4y ago
  Yep, and maybe I was being too harsh in how I said it. It's an understandable sentiment; I've just never seen it work in practice. Inevitably, the team (over time) begins to move orthogonally to the company. Like I said above, you'd need a very well-oiled machine, ala a super tight chain of command with clear directives at each layer. I see it in the same way I see security. A company is only as secure as its most vulnerable employee, so everyone must be vigilant about their own personal security practices. Same goes for "product security" - ensuring that the micro-actions taken by each IC reflect the company's objectives. It's an all-hands-on-deck practice.
worik 4y ago
> code, and all it’s material constructs that you pointed out (loops, allocation etc), do not exist apart from the business, because it’s the only reason those things exist in the first place. I What else is that true for? All the way down. Biology, chemistry, physics, quantum physics.... All that we work on exists in those contexts too. Yet we just swim in the sea and ignore the water. The same is true of business matters. They are the ocean I swim in > I’ve seen devs waste literal months on things that, had the primary stakeholders known about it, they’d never have agreed to. That is poor communication. Communication is a necessary skill for all cooperative endeavours. I am a cog in a machine. Unusually for some one in my position I actually have a good understanding of business (studied it for years) and I prefer computer programming. Having computer programmers stick their oar in over financial matters, unasked, is not good. So I do not do it. I know my place, I like my place.
- danielvaughn 4y ago
  Do you honestly think I’m being so literal when I use the term “business” that I’m talking about devs getting involved in financial matters? I’m talking about developers approaching their job with the understanding that they work for a business, and that their output is intended to drive business results. If they don’t understand how their work affects the business, there is an issue. > That is poor communication. …yes…as I said, there needs to be a tight chain of command with clear directives at each layer, in other words, good communication. When there is a break in the communication chain, the only thing you can rely on is an individual developers judgement.

michaelcampbell 4y ago

> Sure you could just see yourself as just a cog in the machine, with no responsibility whatsoever in wondering why the fuck you’re doing what you’re doing. But I certainly would not hire you. But there are lots, and LOTS of people who would, and want EXACTLY THAT. They want people to be told what to do, and do it, and not question why.

danielvaughn 4y ago
Yep, and maybe I was being too harsh in how I said it. It's an understandable sentiment; I've just never seen it work in practice. Inevitably, the team (over time) begins to move orthogonally to the company. Like I said above, you'd need a very well-oiled machine, ala a super tight chain of command with clear directives at each layer. I see it in the same way I see security. A company is only as secure as its most vulnerable employee, so everyone must be vigilant about their own personal security practices. Same goes for "product security" - ensuring that the micro-actions taken by each IC reflect the company's objectives. It's an all-hands-on-deck practice.

worik 4y ago

> code, and all it’s material constructs that you pointed out (loops, allocation etc), do not exist apart from the business, because it’s the only reason those things exist in the first place. I What else is that true for? All the way down. Biology, chemistry, physics, quantum physics.... All that we work on exists in those contexts too. Yet we just swim in the sea and ignore the water. The same is true of business matters. They are the ocean I swim in > I’ve seen devs waste literal months on things that, had the primary stakeholders known about it, they’d never have agreed to. That is poor communication. Communication is a necessary skill for all cooperative endeavours. I am a cog in a machine. Unusually for some one in my position I actually have a good understanding of business (studied it for years) and I prefer computer programming. Having computer programmers stick their oar in over financial matters, unasked, is not good. So I do not do it. I know my place, I like my place.

danielvaughn 4y ago
Do you honestly think I’m being so literal when I use the term “business” that I’m talking about devs getting involved in financial matters? I’m talking about developers approaching their job with the understanding that they work for a business, and that their output is intended to drive business results. If they don’t understand how their work affects the business, there is an issue. > That is poor communication. …yes…as I said, there needs to be a tight chain of command with clear directives at each layer, in other words, good communication. When there is a break in the communication chain, the only thing you can rely on is an individual developers judgement.