5 ms·

Nope. Because they place little value on the expertise of their engineering staff, as evidenced by the comical restrictions they inflict on intelligent profess

Nope. Because they place little value on the expertise of their engineering staff, as evidenced by the comical restrictions they inflict on intelligent professionals.

stephenr 12y ago
It says quite clearly, they have a process for adding new tech to the stack, and that developers have more freedom for their own environment than for things going into prod. Just because you have to convince someone to agree with and approve your use of shiny-new-thing v0.0.0.1alpha doesn't mean they have "comical restrictions".
- overgard 12y ago
  I should clarify: my opinion doesn't have anything to do with the use of shiny new tech. I think using tried-and-true tech stacks is perfectly sensible. My commentary has to do with the impression that engineers there are not trusted to make those decisions.
  - stephenr 12y ago
    If 230 "engineers" all make choices about tech in use, you end up with a fucking nightmare mess of every imaginable tech stack mixed and matched. It says very clearly they will use new things when the benefit can be shown. So it still just sounds like you don't like that you would need to prove why you're changing something on a whim, because "oh this is better" doesn't cut it Edit: fixed weirdest typo/autocorrect weirdness ever.
    - overgard 12y ago
      Well, trust is a very important part of a working relationship. I don't change things willy nilly for fun because I wouldn't want to betray my employers trust in me. I've been in high-freedom situations in companies with lots of engineers, and you know what? Chaos did not ensue. Professional pride, interest in being able to collaborate with others, etc tended to reign things in just fine. The article, to my perspective, suggests a situation in which there is very little trust towards their employees. Having seen both ends of the spectrum, I wouldn't want to work in an environment like that.

Nope. Because they place little value on the expertise of their engineering staff, as evidenced by the comical restrictions they inflict on intelligent professionals.

stephenr 12y ago

It says quite clearly, they have a process for adding new tech to the stack, and that developers have more freedom for their own environment than for things going into prod. Just because you have to convince someone to agree with and approve your use of shiny-new-thing v0.0.0.1alpha doesn't mean they have "comical restrictions".

overgard 12y ago
I should clarify: my opinion doesn't have anything to do with the use of shiny new tech. I think using tried-and-true tech stacks is perfectly sensible. My commentary has to do with the impression that engineers there are not trusted to make those decisions.
- stephenr 12y ago
  If 230 "engineers" all make choices about tech in use, you end up with a fucking nightmare mess of every imaginable tech stack mixed and matched. It says very clearly they will use new things when the benefit can be shown. So it still just sounds like you don't like that you would need to prove why you're changing something on a whim, because "oh this is better" doesn't cut it Edit: fixed weirdest typo/autocorrect weirdness ever.
  - overgard 12y ago
    Well, trust is a very important part of a working relationship. I don't change things willy nilly for fun because I wouldn't want to betray my employers trust in me. I've been in high-freedom situations in companies with lots of engineers, and you know what? Chaos did not ensue. Professional pride, interest in being able to collaborate with others, etc tended to reign things in just fine. The article, to my perspective, suggests a situation in which there is very little trust towards their employees. Having seen both ends of the spectrum, I wouldn't want to work in an environment like that.