4 ms·
The process change was top down, yes, I think that's the only way it could have succeeded IMO. However, the Scala change was bottom up and by developers. The
by seglo 13y ago
The process change was top down, yes, I think that's the only way it could have succeeded IMO. However, the Scala change was bottom up and by developers.
The Mindshare acquisition is a recent event that postdates our technology change (Sept 19).
- _random_ 13y agoHow did those "developers" choose that change if a lot of them disagreed and left later on? There had to be 1-2 leaders who happened to be Scala-fans.
- seglo 13y agoWe had two teams in separate physical locations. We worked together occasionally, but most of the time projects were fully staffed at one location or the other. The Scala change was fully supported at one of the office and not the other. It wasn't too difficult to convince the CTO that Scala was the right choice. He's a big OSS advocate. From a technological perspective we were trusted to make the right decision. I think what really sold the the rest of the management team was how much money we could save in licensing fees.
- powertower 13y ago> I think what really sold the the rest of the management team was how much money we could save in licensing fees. Come on, ...Microsoft licensing costs are a rounding error compared to the cost of developers.
- _random_ 13y agoWell, some people are trying to save money even on free soda for developers - there were articles on HN.