4 ms·

> And if you can’t ask why A stays and B can’t be accepted, that just means you believe your reasoning is always the correct one What? Why are you saying "if y

by cauch 3mo ago

> And if you can’t ask why A stays and B can’t be accepted, that just means you believe your reasoning is always the correct one What? Why are you saying "if you can't ask why"? I personally can ask "why", there is no problem with that. I have been in situation where I was the lead and I had to say no to someone like Chet and I've done it after listening to him. And I've been in situation where I was the lead and I listen to Chet and Chet had a good point that was useful, and I used this point to reassess my decision, and sometimes I change my plan, and sometimes I did not. And I've been in situation where I disagreed with the lead but said "ok, you're the lead, we should not flip-flop between captains, we need one person at the driving wheel, so I accept your decision". Why are you inventing that it is a problem to me? Can you provide the sentence I've written that led you to that conclusion? But in the article, in the scenario, the author never ask "why". Chet arrived and said he thinks there is something suboptimal, and the author did not say "why", he said "YAGNI", and Chet tried to discuss this and the author did not say "why", he said "YAGNI", and Chet tried to have the author explain why, and the author did not say "why", he said "YAGNI". The author __REFUSED__ the discussion. Chet did not even had the opportunity to say "why". > If you state something and the person in front doesn’t accept it, you ask for his reasons. It is what Chet is trying to do. Chet does not say "no, you are wrong", Chet tried to discuss this: he wants to explain his argument to know what are the author reason for possibly refusing. Chet suspects that the author does not understand, he tries to clarify, to give example, but the author just refuses. > You really can’t accept that the author knows about B and have a valid reason to not choose it, evenk if B is completely valid? Why are you thinking that? The problem is not that I believe the author is wrong about B. The problem is that the author has assumed Chet was talking about B when this is only an unsubstantiated assumption. Look at what I've written, I've written explicitly: > You listen to him, and then you still can decide if it's smarter to do it now or not. If you decide "let's not do B" and Chet says "no, I refuse to accept that", then Chet is 100% wrong. The problem is that the author decided that Chet was talking about B __before Chet even explain what he is talking about__. Again, if the author has good reason to not do B, then, I FULLY AGREE WE SHOULD NOT DO B. The problem is that the author is an idiot: Chet tries to talk to him about something, and the author just assumes, without any proof, that it is about B. > Software engineering is all about tradeoffs. And it’s on the leaders to choose some, even if you really believe it must lean the other way. A leader that choose between tradeoffs when he __refused to listen to the information__ is a bad leader, and his work will be poor. Let's take your logic further: why providing any information to the lead at all? The stakeholders approach the lead and say "hello, we would like to have a feature, this will be ...", lead: "STOP! This will be a frontend interface with an animation of a little frog dancing", stakeholders: "what? no, we would like ...", lead: "no, you want that", stakeholders: "but you don't understand ...", lead: "good meeting, byyyye". Honestly, your position is so weak. My question is "what's the problem with just listening to Chet to understand what he is talking about", and your position is so poor that the only thing you were able to do is to say "no because if I listen to Chet, it means Chet refuses my decision", which is blatantly incorrect.

skydhash 3mo ago
Chet has already told the author about B in the first sentence (that’s how the author knows B is complicated). The rest is Chet trying to justify B without asking why the author choose A. It’s not Chet explaining what B is, it’s Chet explaining why B is better. From his own point of view. With no understanding why the author prefers A. Assuming the author don’t know anything about B and that it can’t understand the tradeoffs between A and B is where you are wrong. Especially if the tradeoffs lean strongly towards “shipping soon” and away from “Be correct 3 weeks later”. In that 3 weeks window, there will be time to review B while A is already providing value. But Chet’s decision to scrape A is not the correct one. And about the taking the logic further, you’re again inventing a situation that the author has not been discussing about > My question is "what's the problem with just listening to Chet to understand what he is talking about" Because what Chet is talking about is abandonning A, a simple solution, for B, a complex one, where the primary reason is that B will be useful 3 weeks later. And for the author, that tradeoff is unacceptable. Why? Chet doesn’t know, because he’s too busy trying to prove B.
- cauch 3mo ago
  > Chet has already told the author about B in the first sentence No. Chet says, I quote, "so since we’re going to need this more complicated thing I want to do it now". Chet does not explain what is this more complicated thing that he wants to do, what is the problem exactly, if it is a problem linked to A failing the requirements of today or not, ... > It’s not Chet explaining what B is, it’s Chet explaining why B is better. Ok, first, for the author to not be a shit team lead, he needs to understand B itself, but also how B fit into the picture. (also, what is the problem with that: if Chet's opinion is that B is better, I __want__ to hear it. It does not mean I will agree. It does not mean Chet is right. But if someone reached a different conclusion than me, I need to understand why just to check if indeed I've missed something or not) But secondly, that is again your bias talking. You are brainwashed by YAGNI, so when you read what Chet says, you are unable to imagine that the exact same conversation can happen if Chet is presenting a real new problem that the author missed. That's my whole red flag with the article: it starts with this scenario, and then continue explaining YAGNI. The author explains YAGNI perfectly. But the big problem is that in his initial scenario, he is showing in fact a scenario I saw over and over again: he fails to notice that someone may say exactly the same thing as Chet __and yet__ "YAGNI" as he correctly describe it later does not apply. The author just teaches readers to be idiot, to not think, to just see someone saying "3 weeks" and then jumps into "YAGNI" without even checking if YAGNI applies or not. > Assuming the author don’t know anything about B and that it can’t understand the tradeoffs between A and B is where you are wrong. Read what you have just said and think about it. I am saying "everyone, sometimes, can miss something". And for some strange reason, you understand "this person know absolutely nothing". I am saying that the author know a lot about the constraints of the project. But unless the author is an idiot, the author also knows that he may have missed something and that someone else may have noticed. In this dialog, the author does not check if Chet has found something he has missed. He directly assumed Chet is wrong and he is right. Why is Chet even in the company? You are saying that the author is god: he is never ever wrong, he knows everyyyyything, he is perfect. As soon as you admit that this is obviously bullshit, then you have to admit that the author should engage with Chet to check if something was missed. Again, taking the exact dialog of the article (as you whined about), looking it word-for-word, Chet did not explain his point and the author interrupted him before he could. You can INVENT that the author knows things behind the scene or that they said other things on top of what is written, but then not only you are hypocricital, but on top, it shows that both the author and you just took some hypothesis for granted: you are biased. > Especially if ... Again with "you gave a counter-example that shows I'm wrong, but let's ignore it and take an example I've built myself where it works". Again, I'm saying: "the author is a poor lead because he did not check if Chet has found something he missed", and your answer is "but let's assume Chet did not found something he missed". But the problem is still there. A good bus driver looks both ways before crossing the busy road. "Let's assume no car was coming" means that this mistake, in this specific case, has no bad consequences, but the bus driver is still a terrible bus driver if he did not look both ways. Here, if we assume Chet did not notice something that the author missed, then the author has been lucky, but he still failed to do something he needed to do in order to be a good lead. > And about the taking the logic further, ... Do you even understand the principle of "taking the logic further"? Are you telling me that "to take the logic further", one should apply the same logic to THE SCENARIO THAT ALREADY EXIST? How is that moving it further? Pushing the logic further demonstrates the flaw in the logic. If your logic was sound, than pushing this logic further would not create any absurd situation. > Because what Chet is talking about is abandonning A, a simple solution, for B, a complex one, where the primary reason is that B will be useful 3 weeks later. HOW DOES LISTEN CHANGE ANYTHING? You just LISTEN. You don't say "tell me Chet, and once you told me, I will have no choice but to accept". You LISTEN to Chet, and if Chet explains and you see that the trade-off is bad, YOU TELL HIM "WE WON'T DO THAT". That's the problem: for some strange reason, you seems to believe that if Chet just tell you his reasoning, it means you agree with him. You don't have to agree with him, you just have to check if the reasoning of Chet is indeed the reasoning you assumed he had at the start when he did not explain his reasoning yet.

by cauch 3mo ago

skydhash 3mo ago

Chet has already told the author about B in the first sentence (that’s how the author knows B is complicated). The rest is Chet trying to justify B without asking why the author choose A. It’s not Chet explaining what B is, it’s Chet explaining why B is better. From his own point of view. With no understanding why the author prefers A. Assuming the author don’t know anything about B and that it can’t understand the tradeoffs between A and B is where you are wrong. Especially if the tradeoffs lean strongly towards “shipping soon” and away from “Be correct 3 weeks later”. In that 3 weeks window, there will be time to review B while A is already providing value. But Chet’s decision to scrape A is not the correct one. And about the taking the logic further, you’re again inventing a situation that the author has not been discussing about > My question is "what's the problem with just listening to Chet to understand what he is talking about" Because what Chet is talking about is abandonning A, a simple solution, for B, a complex one, where the primary reason is that B will be useful 3 weeks later. And for the author, that tradeoff is unacceptable. Why? Chet doesn’t know, because he’s too busy trying to prove B.

cauch 3mo ago
> Chet has already told the author about B in the first sentence No. Chet says, I quote, "so since we’re going to need this more complicated thing I want to do it now". Chet does not explain what is this more complicated thing that he wants to do, what is the problem exactly, if it is a problem linked to A failing the requirements of today or not, ... > It’s not Chet explaining what B is, it’s Chet explaining why B is better. Ok, first, for the author to not be a shit team lead, he needs to understand B itself, but also how B fit into the picture. (also, what is the problem with that: if Chet's opinion is that B is better, I __want__ to hear it. It does not mean I will agree. It does not mean Chet is right. But if someone reached a different conclusion than me, I need to understand why just to check if indeed I've missed something or not) But secondly, that is again your bias talking. You are brainwashed by YAGNI, so when you read what Chet says, you are unable to imagine that the exact same conversation can happen if Chet is presenting a real new problem that the author missed. That's my whole red flag with the article: it starts with this scenario, and then continue explaining YAGNI. The author explains YAGNI perfectly. But the big problem is that in his initial scenario, he is showing in fact a scenario I saw over and over again: he fails to notice that someone may say exactly the same thing as Chet __and yet__ "YAGNI" as he correctly describe it later does not apply. The author just teaches readers to be idiot, to not think, to just see someone saying "3 weeks" and then jumps into "YAGNI" without even checking if YAGNI applies or not. > Assuming the author don’t know anything about B and that it can’t understand the tradeoffs between A and B is where you are wrong. Read what you have just said and think about it. I am saying "everyone, sometimes, can miss something". And for some strange reason, you understand "this person know absolutely nothing". I am saying that the author know a lot about the constraints of the project. But unless the author is an idiot, the author also knows that he may have missed something and that someone else may have noticed. In this dialog, the author does not check if Chet has found something he has missed. He directly assumed Chet is wrong and he is right. Why is Chet even in the company? You are saying that the author is god: he is never ever wrong, he knows everyyyyything, he is perfect. As soon as you admit that this is obviously bullshit, then you have to admit that the author should engage with Chet to check if something was missed. Again, taking the exact dialog of the article (as you whined about), looking it word-for-word, Chet did not explain his point and the author interrupted him before he could. You can INVENT that the author knows things behind the scene or that they said other things on top of what is written, but then not only you are hypocricital, but on top, it shows that both the author and you just took some hypothesis for granted: you are biased. > Especially if ... Again with "you gave a counter-example that shows I'm wrong, but let's ignore it and take an example I've built myself where it works". Again, I'm saying: "the author is a poor lead because he did not check if Chet has found something he missed", and your answer is "but let's assume Chet did not found something he missed". But the problem is still there. A good bus driver looks both ways before crossing the busy road. "Let's assume no car was coming" means that this mistake, in this specific case, has no bad consequences, but the bus driver is still a terrible bus driver if he did not look both ways. Here, if we assume Chet did not notice something that the author missed, then the author has been lucky, but he still failed to do something he needed to do in order to be a good lead. > And about the taking the logic further, ... Do you even understand the principle of "taking the logic further"? Are you telling me that "to take the logic further", one should apply the same logic to THE SCENARIO THAT ALREADY EXIST? How is that moving it further? Pushing the logic further demonstrates the flaw in the logic. If your logic was sound, than pushing this logic further would not create any absurd situation. > Because what Chet is talking about is abandonning A, a simple solution, for B, a complex one, where the primary reason is that B will be useful 3 weeks later. HOW DOES LISTEN CHANGE ANYTHING? You just LISTEN. You don't say "tell me Chet, and once you told me, I will have no choice but to accept". You LISTEN to Chet, and if Chet explains and you see that the trade-off is bad, YOU TELL HIM "WE WON'T DO THAT". That's the problem: for some strange reason, you seems to believe that if Chet just tell you his reasoning, it means you agree with him. You don't have to agree with him, you just have to check if the reasoning of Chet is indeed the reasoning you assumed he had at the start when he did not explain his reasoning yet.