3 ms·

Just general commentary. If something really, truly works and you can prove it, then everyone will adopt it. If this isn't being adopted by everyone then there

Just general commentary. If something really, truly works and you can prove it, then everyone will adopt it. If this isn't being adopted by everyone then there can only be two reasons: either it doesn't really, truly work -- because of some nasty details that you're soft-pedaling; or it simply needs more proof, which will inevitably come with time. If it doesn't really, truly work, one reason could be that most corporate developers can barely write working code; writing test code that will hold the whole project up if/when it fails -- that's beyond what you could trust the average developer to write. It may work well when you have a top-notch developer to write tests, or when the goals of the project are especially amenable to automated testing, but in the common case cause too much friction. Edit: a more sinister reason that automated testing isn't used more, even if it might deliver better software, is that a lot of companies that are in the software business don't care much about defects. Many seem to care more about shipping features, even if those features are half-assed and buggy, than about shipping code that works. But, even so -- we're talking about no-brainers here. Even shoddy companies eventually adopt really obvious better practices, even if only by following the herd.

kenko 12y ago
"Just general commentary. If something really, truly works and you can prove it, then everyone will adopt it." This is charmingly naive.
- haberman 12y ago
  Maybe so, but you would have a more convincing (counter-)argument if you offered some counterexamples.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    To start with, anything covered by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble... .
    - mtdewcmu 12y ago
      Technophiles have a tendency to fall in love with ideas that no one else cares about and assert that people that dont see what they see are fools. But capitalism enforces a degree of honesty. If you can put a cash value on the productivity gain some idea will provide, and it's a significant sum, then it's not much of a stretch to predict that it will prevail eventually. If the idea has no significant cash value, then it's only a mediocre idea. Sometimes we tech people have to be humble and accept that something we love is mediocre (especially when we try to start a company based on the idea and no one buys it).
- mtdewcmu 12y ago
  Here's an example of something that truly works: git. I don't think git was adopted because Linus is a silver-tongued salesman. I think the cost-benefit analysis was just lopsided in git's favor, and everyone adopted it. The reason it doesn't happen more often is that there aren't that many truly good, production-ready ideas out there that haven't already been done.
tokenrove 12y ago
I disagree with your most general statement, and I feel this quote better reflects my experience: Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats. -- Howard Aiken
- mtdewcmu 12y ago
  I think the reason we're not seeing eye to eye is that we're applying different standards. That quote makes a point PG has made (IIRC). He concluded that great startups don't naturally follow from great ideas. That's because ideas alone are seldom so great that they do all the work on their own: you still have to execute, and good execution is underrated. This article is claiming to have an idea so great that literally anyone can employ it and benefit from it, though, and that's an awfully high standard.

kenko 12y ago

"Just general commentary. If something really, truly works and you can prove it, then everyone will adopt it." This is charmingly naive.

haberman 12y ago
Maybe so, but you would have a more convincing (counter-)argument if you offered some counterexamples.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  To start with, anything covered by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble... .
  - mtdewcmu 12y ago
    Technophiles have a tendency to fall in love with ideas that no one else cares about and assert that people that dont see what they see are fools. But capitalism enforces a degree of honesty. If you can put a cash value on the productivity gain some idea will provide, and it's a significant sum, then it's not much of a stretch to predict that it will prevail eventually. If the idea has no significant cash value, then it's only a mediocre idea. Sometimes we tech people have to be humble and accept that something we love is mediocre (especially when we try to start a company based on the idea and no one buys it).
mtdewcmu 12y ago
Here's an example of something that truly works: git. I don't think git was adopted because Linus is a silver-tongued salesman. I think the cost-benefit analysis was just lopsided in git's favor, and everyone adopted it. The reason it doesn't happen more often is that there aren't that many truly good, production-ready ideas out there that haven't already been done.

tokenrove 12y ago

I disagree with your most general statement, and I feel this quote better reflects my experience: Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats. -- Howard Aiken

mtdewcmu 12y ago
I think the reason we're not seeing eye to eye is that we're applying different standards. That quote makes a point PG has made (IIRC). He concluded that great startups don't naturally follow from great ideas. That's because ideas alone are seldom so great that they do all the work on their own: you still have to execute, and good execution is underrated. This article is claiming to have an idea so great that literally anyone can employ it and benefit from it, though, and that's an awfully high standard.