4 ms·
The idea was that a converged, single, multi-language runtime and framework was the way to go. This is the way the culture works in Redmond - that's considered
by shawnb576 11y ago
The idea was that a converged, single, multi-language runtime and framework was the way to go. This is the way the culture works in Redmond - that's considered "strategic thinking", which is only exists in that bubble. It wasn't that the plan was bad, it's that it was unrealistic to think that the users of a very mature, very scenario-focused product would be happy with a V1 generalized product that was sorta-kinda the same thing. This was obviously false, and I actually fought against the porting tool because I didn't think it would work (it didn't), and just piss people off (it did). To keep VB6 alive until VB.net matured is anthetical to the way the place runs. Newer is _always_ better, even if it's not, and there lacked any incentive in the comp system for people to take care of the existing userbase. So, that's what happened.
- sukilot 11y agoThis really puts into focus the meaning of "strategic thinking": abandoning current customers in favor of potential future customers.
- pron 11y ago> there lacked any incentive in the comp system for people to take care of the existing userbase Can you explain that? Are there incentives to do other stuff?
- shawnb576 11y agoThe basic system - no. As of 2012 when I left, comp was about what your management was interested in. Maybe "take care of existing users" is on your review commitments, but what's really on there if you want to get ahead is: ship features, drive future business, etc. As such people wanted to work on the next new thing, it was relatively bad for careers to be on existing old things. Massive variations between groups, but basically that was the culture.
- frik 11y agoThanks for sharing your experience, it helps to understand some of the business decisions.