5 ms·

> "we should just force people to go back to the office, just to teach those toddlers to behave like adults". (not always, it's just a knee-jerk reaction "oh co

by ath3nd 3y ago

> "we should just force people to go back to the office, just to teach those toddlers to behave like adults". (not always, it's just a knee-jerk reaction "oh come on, stop behaving like babies") Sorry for the adversarial tone, but "we should just force people" to me shows you deserve to be chastised a bit. First of all, you are not an employer (luckily), so there is no "we", each company decides for itself how to handle remote, and luckily, many have weighed on the benefits and have decided to go with that. Second, the premise of you saying "oh come on, stop behaving like babies" shows to me that you think that "behaving like a baby" means: - not wanting to waste an average of 2 (unpaid) hours of your day stuck in traffic commuting (which, by the way, is also bad for the environment) - wanting peaceful and quiet atmosphere where you can focus on your work without noise and people tapping you on the shoulders And I don't want even to argue with that, it's that bad of a take. Based on your views you are either young and full of energy (not having children), or old enough (boomer) and with people taking care of chores for you (wife) that to you it is the norm and we are all snowflakes unreasonably complaining. I don't see our views and incentives aligning on this. > The number one problem I see at my work place is devs that are good at coding but that are very bad at even understanding what is the goal of the code they are doing. That's just bad developers. They can't be good at coding if they don't understand the goal of the code, that's an oxymoron. > Between a great coder and an average coder, the one who is good at being interrupted is a better dev. Coding in itself is just part of skill, but it is not the most important. Doing good work, for which you require peace and quiet and a focused state of mind, is what being good at coding is all about. Also, most of the times it's better if a discussion is in a written form (e.g slack/PR/ticket) so others can use it as a reference in the future, rather than a chat you and Josh had at the whiteboard. Being a good coder also means being able to document well what your reasoning are, what your design is, and how to implement it, both things which require you to write it the HECK down. > For me, you are the one who sounds like a toddler who asks everyone around them to be less efficient just because otherwise you are mildly inconvenienced. The premise that everyone is more efficient with constant interruption and questions pouring from every direction, all the time, is laughable at best. There is ton of research that office interruptions drag down the productivity of the group, while all you have is some boomer's feeling that people are working better where they can observe them. I started this response by saying I am sorry for the adversarial tone of my response, but the more I think of this now, the more I am not sorry. I see opinions like yours as a part of the problem why the rest of us can't have good things and a quiet and productive work life. If you want to go the office to get immersed in the beautiful, inspiring atmosphere of rows of desks with guys with headphones click-clacking away on their keyboards and discussing the last season of Game of Thrones, be my guest and go for it, but I am happy that the rest of us can choose not to. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/even-small-distractions-derail-productivity.html https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/minds-business/eve... https://juliety.com/effects-of-distractions-at-work https://juliety.com/effects-of-distractions-at-work https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/11/why-open-offices-hurt-collaboration-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/11/why-open-offi...

cauch 3y ago
> Sorry for the adversarial tone From someone who called other people "toddler" ... > - not wanting to waste an average of 2 ... If you read my comment, you see that I called it a "knee-jerk reaction", it is not sometimes I will really defend. It is just when I see people like you, self-centered and unable to accept that someone can like interacting at the office without calling them "toddler" and inventing that these person will interrupt you for no good reason after you make clear you don't like it. > Based on your views you are either ... None of these descriptions correspond to me. This just confirm my feeling that you "think you know all" but don't really. > and we are all snowflakes unreasonably complaining. Let's be clear on that: I have nothing against you complaining. My problem is that you are complaining about what others are doing to you but you are also complaining that others don't accept you doing the same thing to them. > They can't be good at coding if they don't understand the goal of the code That's my point: people need to communicate A LOT, ask questions, interact. Bad developers are the ones who quickly create a picture in their head and then run with it. I see that a lot in my work (I'm a scientist in the R&D of my company, working with developers to create implementation of the models and algorithms my team design). > Doing good work, for which you require peace and quiet and a focused state of mind, is what being good at coding is all about And yet, I see developers focusing only on that and yet producing shit software. > ... written form ... document well ... But this is not what we are talking about. No one here is saying that this should not exist. But is not sufficient. Let me demonstrate to you why. In software development, the whole process is based on the fact that bugs will happen. There are linter, code reviews, version controls that allow reverting, logs built in the code, advanced ticket system to deal with bug raising, ... Coding perfectly in one go is hard, impossible. Documentation and communicating things are obviously worse. Code are logical instruction with mathematical significance. Communication between person A and B can easily be misunderstood with both "being right", simply because human being cannot read minds and consider the thousand of possible mental pictures that the interlocutor has in mind. Because of that, documentation is bound to be more often incorrect than the code. It does not mean it should not be done, but it means that we should continue to continuously fine-tune our understanding, and it includes asking quick and easy questions. Again, you are misconstruing the situation: no one here is arguing that writing things down is bad or should not be done. Simply, different mode of communication have different purpose and different pros and cons. Asking questions is sometimes the correct and smart thing to do. > The premise that everyone is more efficient with constant interruption and questions pouring from every direction, all the time, is laughable at best. WHO IS SAYING THAT. Can you show ONE, ONE person here who is defending that? GP was simply saying that they like solving quick problem with a quick question, it avoids a lot of problem down the line or a lot of useless inefficient process. Your reaction was to invent that GP would bother you all the time for information that exists somewhere else. You just have to realize that the world is more diverse than your own little person: some team works with little questions and it works very very well. The fact that you have to call GP toddler because their way of working is not the same as yours is why I think you are the toddler here. In fact, it is not even that their way of working is not the same as yours: you even seem to be asking people to do things that you will refuse to do yourself.

by ath3nd 3y ago

cauch 3y ago

> Sorry for the adversarial tone From someone who called other people "toddler" ... > - not wanting to waste an average of 2 ... If you read my comment, you see that I called it a "knee-jerk reaction", it is not sometimes I will really defend. It is just when I see people like you, self-centered and unable to accept that someone can like interacting at the office without calling them "toddler" and inventing that these person will interrupt you for no good reason after you make clear you don't like it. > Based on your views you are either ... None of these descriptions correspond to me. This just confirm my feeling that you "think you know all" but don't really. > and we are all snowflakes unreasonably complaining. Let's be clear on that: I have nothing against you complaining. My problem is that you are complaining about what others are doing to you but you are also complaining that others don't accept you doing the same thing to them. > They can't be good at coding if they don't understand the goal of the code That's my point: people need to communicate A LOT, ask questions, interact. Bad developers are the ones who quickly create a picture in their head and then run with it. I see that a lot in my work (I'm a scientist in the R&D of my company, working with developers to create implementation of the models and algorithms my team design). > Doing good work, for which you require peace and quiet and a focused state of mind, is what being good at coding is all about And yet, I see developers focusing only on that and yet producing shit software. > ... written form ... document well ... But this is not what we are talking about. No one here is saying that this should not exist. But is not sufficient. Let me demonstrate to you why. In software development, the whole process is based on the fact that bugs will happen. There are linter, code reviews, version controls that allow reverting, logs built in the code, advanced ticket system to deal with bug raising, ... Coding perfectly in one go is hard, impossible. Documentation and communicating things are obviously worse. Code are logical instruction with mathematical significance. Communication between person A and B can easily be misunderstood with both "being right", simply because human being cannot read minds and consider the thousand of possible mental pictures that the interlocutor has in mind. Because of that, documentation is bound to be more often incorrect than the code. It does not mean it should not be done, but it means that we should continue to continuously fine-tune our understanding, and it includes asking quick and easy questions. Again, you are misconstruing the situation: no one here is arguing that writing things down is bad or should not be done. Simply, different mode of communication have different purpose and different pros and cons. Asking questions is sometimes the correct and smart thing to do. > The premise that everyone is more efficient with constant interruption and questions pouring from every direction, all the time, is laughable at best. WHO IS SAYING THAT. Can you show ONE, ONE person here who is defending that? GP was simply saying that they like solving quick problem with a quick question, it avoids a lot of problem down the line or a lot of useless inefficient process. Your reaction was to invent that GP would bother you all the time for information that exists somewhere else. You just have to realize that the world is more diverse than your own little person: some team works with little questions and it works very very well. The fact that you have to call GP toddler because their way of working is not the same as yours is why I think you are the toddler here. In fact, it is not even that their way of working is not the same as yours: you even seem to be asking people to do things that you will refuse to do yourself.