3 ms·
> Let's see here: Yes, let's. I have no problem with push back. > You have experienced what happens when web developers cosplay as software architects. I agr
by hmeh 3y ago
> Let's see here:
Yes, let's. I have no problem with push back.
> You have experienced what happens when web developers cosplay as software architects.
I agree that this is overly snippy to the point of being counter-productive. It represents a particular emotional frustration with the state of our industry. We knew what ended up being microservices (web API servers making web API calls to other web API servers) was a failure mode. We knew you couldn't just introduce network hops and call it "architecture". So yes, I'm annoyed about that such that I'm willing to call out nameless "web developers", but I understand how that can create discomfort.
> That is, you experienced an average team doing average work misguided by average bad advice. It says absolutely nothing about software design. It only speaks to the fat part of the bell curve doing what it always does.
Indeed, and the person I was responding to effectively acknowledged this. The sooner we can recognize that the skill curve/technology adoption curve are real things, and crossing the chasm takes hard work, the sooner we can stop leaving people behind said chasm. It's not easy. Nothing I said here is untrue. If it is, please point it out.
> because, unlike them, I have significant material experience in both camps.
Again, I'm pointing to a material difference. Most people who are attempting to refute what I am saying have never done what I am saying. They are doing it from a position of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, or worse. I've been where they are. I've fought the fight they are fighting and, thankfully, I lost, and was introduced to new ways of doing things and seeing things. If a person has done what I'm discussing, I would expect them to say that and tell me why it failed. Instead I get people telling me it can't work and I'm incompetent, etc.
> It’s hard to imagine worse advice.
> Just read the author’s bio. This is a person that appears to have zero software design experience writing an article telling you to ignore software design and just respect your team configuration. I call this Conway’s Confusion.
Putting these together because they are about the OP article and the OP. "hard to imagine worse advice" is hyperbole, but it is bad advice. You can't force fit concepts to teams. I mean, you can try, but you'll always end up with unnaturalness.
The actual OP's bio talks about their career. None of it mentions software design. If a person with zero surgery experience started writing about how to properly set up operating rooms, you can darn well bet they will be called a charlatan and called to the carpet. If they aren't people may die. Software isn't that serious usually, but it's not hard to imagine that there have been billions upon billions of dollars flushed down the toilet for the sake of poor software design that no one speaks out against.
> But please, by all means, continue to spread disinformation and keep us in the dark ages.
Yes, overly cynical and unnecessary. I made my point prior to this and I didn't need to add this.
> That sets a good friendly tone huh? If you can't take push back, don't be an arse to begin with.
Some was unnecessary yes, thanks for calling it out. The rest represents what I think is healthy push-back against an orthodoxy that causes more harm than good. We can achieve more as an industry and make our way out of the realm of hobbyists and into something more serious. Many of us call ourselves engineers, but nothing we do resembles anything that people who are actually classically trained engineers do.
> > And which part, specifically sounds incompetent? I’m happy to discuss that.
> Your arrogance precludes a fruitful discussion. But I believe that this needs to be called out, if nothing else to nudge other people to also do it when they see it, or to, albeit much less likely, nudge you towards eating some humble pie.
Just to be clear: you said that what I was saying sounded incompetent. I asked you about that, and you're telling me I appear to be too arrogant for you to tell me why I sound incompetent? Please, tell me what I said that sounds incompetent. Let's move past the ad hominem portion of the discussion now and talk about the actual substance. I'll do my best to refrain from hyperbole and unnecessary snark.
- elktown 3y agoAnswered somewhat what I mean by at least the "code smells" and idiosyncrasies (competency was probably too harsh with given the amount of info) in a reply to another user. > Your arrogance precludes a fruitful discussion. This was specific to the tendencies in other replies to defer to your (or your team's) brilliance/experience as the answer to why your setup is not suspicious, but excellent. Not sure what can come out of a discussion when that's the answer to everything, well nice for you, but a setup that doesn't scale with employee count (and thus competency/experience/interest differences) isn't exactly something that you can go around bragging about.
- hmeh 3y ago> This was specific to the tendencies in other replies to defer to your (or your team's) brilliance/experience as the answer to why your setup is not suspicious, but excellent. I touched on this in my reply to the other user, but at this point, I believe you may just not know what tacit knowledge is. You continue to think that I am pointing to our own brilliance. I'm not. I'm calling a spade a spade. I recognize what it takes to gain particular types of knowledge (tacit, or subtle knowledge), and I recognize that it's this reality that prevents most conversations about techniques from being fruitful. Each participant will put their own experience behind the meaning of their words (and worse, their conversation partner's words) and it will prevent them from recognizing what one another are saying. The only way to have a fruitful discussion is for both sides to be capable of recognizing when that is happening. Since, in my experience, most people aren't -- they'd rather die on their hill than recognize that the person they are talking to is simply on the same hill but sees it differently, or they are on a different hill that really is better, but it cannot be seen as such yet, because it is over the horizon of their knowledge. I don't actually know if you are interested in understanding this more or if you joined the conversation just to try to put me in my place, but if you are, here are some articles that may help: https://madabout.software/articles/subtle-knowledge-crude-knowledge/ https://madabout.software/articles/subtle-knowledge-crude-kn... https://madabout.software/articles/design-is-subtle-knowledge/ https://madabout.software/articles/design-is-subtle-knowledg... Once you can recognize that there is subtle knowledge you might actually see my pointing to it as attempting to keep the conversation from devolving into exactly the type of thing that it tends to devolve into. Or not.