4 ms·

They’re claiming the CTO of Azure doesn’t know enough about modern C++ to make the statement that we’re discussing. Bold claim.

mkl 4y ago
I find it hard to imagine the CTO of Azure has done enough C++ programming in the last few years to be fluent in C++20. Maybe as a hobby I suppose; it doesn't match my understanding of what a CTO of a big organisation does otherwise.
- nindalf 4y ago
  He doesn’t need to be fluent in every language to set technical direction as a CTO. You don’t question a general’s war strategy simply because they aren’t accurate with a rifle.
  - forgotpwd16 4y ago
    >You don’t question a general’s war strategy simply because they aren’t accurate with a rifle. Thing is in this case their advice regards the rifle.
    - nindalf 4y ago
      Right. So the general says we should use a different weapon. That’s fine. It’s also fine to question if that strategy makes sense. It is nonsensical to say “the general can’t hit a moving target with the old rifle, so he should say nothing at all about weapons”. Which is what the person I replied to said.
      - philippejara 4y ago
        The point the person you replied to was making was that him being CTO didn't add much credibility to his claim as you seem to assume by bringing it up, not that it necessarily removed credibility.
  - mkl 4y ago
    Absolutely, but that's not what this subthread is about. It started with zerr saying: > With all due respect, this is coming from a Win32 API C programmer who happens to save the code in files with .cpp extension. In other words, not familiar with modern C++. Edit: Ah, you said "know enough about modern C++", so yes, I agree and was arguing in the wrong bit of the thread.
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    If you're commanding officer orders a bayonet charge in the late 19th century it is safe to say they don't understand the change rifles have brought to the fight. Reference Picket's charge.
    - nindalf 4y ago
      I was saying a commanders accuracy with a rifle isn’t relevant to their ability to decide tactics or strategy. Nothing you’ve said contradicts what I said.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        But the commander hasn't tried a machine gun and thinks that a bayonet charge will still work like it did before.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        supportlocal4h 4y ago
        Or, the commander thinks that in an age of drones and cruise missles, bayonet charges don't make sense even if the bayonet is now attached to a machine gun.
        namelessoracle 4y ago
        And then the commander goes all in on that strategy, enemies knock out communication networks / find a drone counter measure, and now enemies have a decided advantages because they kept bayonets on their machine guns.
        ssokolow 4y ago
        Aren't soldiers typically issued submachine guns? (That's what SMG is short for, isn't it?) I think they might have been going for the ludicrous image of sticking a bayonette onto the front of a fixed gun emplacement.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >He doesn’t need to be fluent in every language to set technical direction as a CTO. No, but he does need to "know enough about modern C++ to make the statement that we’re discussing".
  - namelessoracle 4y ago
    You should if the general came up during the flintlock era and now everybody is using machine guns. Plenty of people in World War 1 would have benefited anyways. I could throw a bunch of examples further. For instance how the changes made to rifles because of what Generals thought their engagement ranges would be hampered the western forces who had to fight in Afghanistan. You should also be skeptical of a General who suggests we go all in on Drone Warfare and not worry about rifles at all. TLDR, person in a strategic role is rarely the best to assess tactical tools, and will often attribute strategic failures on their tactical tools.
- acdha 4y ago
  No, but a good CTO would have people they trust telling them how it’s working. At Microsoft’s scale they could have an entire team auditing internal project stats looking at error rates, adoption of newer features, etc. - they spend more on toilet paper than that would cost!
coldtea 4y ago
All kinds of CTOs are not very technical in many ways. They usually have not been in the trenches for a good while at least (could even be like 20+ years since they've done any development), and they take the ultimate decisions for their whole company for all kinds of languages and environments they have had no experience with... (like a CTO that used to do C back 20 years ago, now having a say in the use of Rust or Node).

mkl 4y ago

I find it hard to imagine the CTO of Azure has done enough C++ programming in the last few years to be fluent in C++20. Maybe as a hobby I suppose; it doesn't match my understanding of what a CTO of a big organisation does otherwise.

nindalf 4y ago
He doesn’t need to be fluent in every language to set technical direction as a CTO. You don’t question a general’s war strategy simply because they aren’t accurate with a rifle.
- forgotpwd16 4y ago
  >You don’t question a general’s war strategy simply because they aren’t accurate with a rifle. Thing is in this case their advice regards the rifle.
  - nindalf 4y ago
    Right. So the general says we should use a different weapon. That’s fine. It’s also fine to question if that strategy makes sense. It is nonsensical to say “the general can’t hit a moving target with the old rifle, so he should say nothing at all about weapons”. Which is what the person I replied to said.
    - philippejara 4y ago
      The point the person you replied to was making was that him being CTO didn't add much credibility to his claim as you seem to assume by bringing it up, not that it necessarily removed credibility.
- mkl 4y ago
  Absolutely, but that's not what this subthread is about. It started with zerr saying: > With all due respect, this is coming from a Win32 API C programmer who happens to save the code in files with .cpp extension. In other words, not familiar with modern C++. Edit: Ah, you said "know enough about modern C++", so yes, I agree and was arguing in the wrong bit of the thread.
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  If you're commanding officer orders a bayonet charge in the late 19th century it is safe to say they don't understand the change rifles have brought to the fight. Reference Picket's charge.
  - nindalf 4y ago
    I was saying a commanders accuracy with a rifle isn’t relevant to their ability to decide tactics or strategy. Nothing you’ve said contradicts what I said.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      But the commander hasn't tried a machine gun and thinks that a bayonet charge will still work like it did before.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - supportlocal4h 4y ago
        Or, the commander thinks that in an age of drones and cruise missles, bayonet charges don't make sense even if the bayonet is now attached to a machine gun.
        namelessoracle 4y ago
        And then the commander goes all in on that strategy, enemies knock out communication networks / find a drone counter measure, and now enemies have a decided advantages because they kept bayonets on their machine guns.
        ssokolow 4y ago
        Aren't soldiers typically issued submachine guns? (That's what SMG is short for, isn't it?) I think they might have been going for the ludicrous image of sticking a bayonette onto the front of a fixed gun emplacement.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >He doesn’t need to be fluent in every language to set technical direction as a CTO. No, but he does need to "know enough about modern C++ to make the statement that we’re discussing".
- namelessoracle 4y ago
  You should if the general came up during the flintlock era and now everybody is using machine guns. Plenty of people in World War 1 would have benefited anyways. I could throw a bunch of examples further. For instance how the changes made to rifles because of what Generals thought their engagement ranges would be hampered the western forces who had to fight in Afghanistan. You should also be skeptical of a General who suggests we go all in on Drone Warfare and not worry about rifles at all. TLDR, person in a strategic role is rarely the best to assess tactical tools, and will often attribute strategic failures on their tactical tools.
acdha 4y ago
No, but a good CTO would have people they trust telling them how it’s working. At Microsoft’s scale they could have an entire team auditing internal project stats looking at error rates, adoption of newer features, etc. - they spend more on toilet paper than that would cost!

coldtea 4y ago

All kinds of CTOs are not very technical in many ways. They usually have not been in the trenches for a good while at least (could even be like 20+ years since they've done any development), and they take the ultimate decisions for their whole company for all kinds of languages and environments they have had no experience with... (like a CTO that used to do C back 20 years ago, now having a say in the use of Rust or Node).