4 ms·

Could you expand on that a little? Did he not contribute as expected on projects, but he was a smart person. Or was his approach unconventional?

leoh 3y ago
‘Worst’ in the original comment means —‘bad’ from the default perspective that is prevalent at tech giants (perfect code coverage, everything makes sense always — as opposed to allowing for freedom to iterate, rewrite, and create exceptional software that people find helpful and love). He is extremely good at prototyping quickly (including things that can be quite complex — even with good code quality), building things people really want, and collaborating with users. Had he not come into Google via an acquisition, it seems unlikely that Google would have supported him and recognized his formidable talent (and I doubt he would have had the patience for Google’s typical pedantic code review process — I’m not saying Google’s code review culture is ‘bad’ but it can be extremely alienating to many gifted individuals). Working with him has been an exceptional lesson in challenging my default assumptions about what being a ‘great’ software engineer can mean. … and especially that there’s no one ‘right way’ — there’s just what works for some folks and what works for other folks. As you can imagine, although I can respect aspects of Google’s culture, I am strongly against the philosophy that there is ‘one right way.’
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  I interpreted your original comment to mean: he is horrible as an engineer but a generally smart person otherwise. It sounds like what you meant is that he is a great engineer, but he doesn't satisfy certain qualities that would usually be considered requirements (or at least required at Google) for a good engineer?
  - leoh 3y ago
    Indeed

4 ms·

Could you expand on that a little? Did he not contribute as expected on projects, but he was a smart person. Or was his approach unconventional?

by ThinkBeat 3y ago

leoh 3y ago
‘Worst’ in the original comment means —‘bad’ from the default perspective that is prevalent at tech giants (perfect code coverage, everything makes sense always — as opposed to allowing for freedom to iterate, rewrite, and create exceptional software that people find helpful and love). He is extremely good at prototyping quickly (including things that can be quite complex — even with good code quality), building things people really want, and collaborating with users. Had he not come into Google via an acquisition, it seems unlikely that Google would have supported him and recognized his formidable talent (and I doubt he would have had the patience for Google’s typical pedantic code review process — I’m not saying Google’s code review culture is ‘bad’ but it can be extremely alienating to many gifted individuals). Working with him has been an exceptional lesson in challenging my default assumptions about what being a ‘great’ software engineer can mean. … and especially that there’s no one ‘right way’ — there’s just what works for some folks and what works for other folks. As you can imagine, although I can respect aspects of Google’s culture, I am strongly against the philosophy that there is ‘one right way.’
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  I interpreted your original comment to mean: he is horrible as an engineer but a generally smart person otherwise. It sounds like what you meant is that he is a great engineer, but he doesn't satisfy certain qualities that would usually be considered requirements (or at least required at Google) for a good engineer?
  - leoh 3y ago
    Indeed