hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

No it isn't, though. It's not like there's a "right way" to run a team. The teams I've been on that didn't review code always ended up imploding because because people rationalize their innocent corner-cutting when they don't have to deal with the embarrassment of sending it off to anyone.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

I agree with the others commenting here and can't relate to your experience at all. Review is a huge positive and while it does "slow things down" it usually is preventing people from slamming into walls at high speed, so that's a positive too.

Maybe your work experience is mostly in a high stress, prototype-heavy environment where it's more important to launch something than it is to have a maintainable, incrementally improving codebase? I worked at a consultancy like that and it was very different from "big product" long term work.

As for the social dynamics, it sounds like your workplace culture just blows.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

Peer programming is just code review again, except now you're only allowed to write when two people are available.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

Yes, generally. I don't really understand why anyone commits broken junk and then leaves it there.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

It sounds like the problem is more or less summarized as "No one knows how to evaluate work, so loud people get promoted."

Not biasing towards loud people is difficult, but at least at Google, the process is pretty harshly designed to avoid it. The criteria for promotion is clear. The people deciding on it are considering many different promotions at once, so they have a decent sample to look at. The people with incentive to promote don't get to make the decision or they play only a small role in it. There is a strong demand to see evidence that the person's work fits the job ladder description that they are trying to promote to, etc.

It's a lot of overhead and everyone hates it, but it seems to be pretty robust at avoiding arbitrary promotion.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

This seems to be split pretty clearly down a "promotion criteria" line.

At small companies, where basically everything is arbitrary, sample sizes are small and there's not enough data to be data driven, titles are perceived as mostly meaningless.

At large companies that do a good job of standardizing how promotion works and what is required to get it, titles are not perceived to be meaningless.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

I think this is probably a small-company problem. I've literally never met a staff engineer at Google that wasn't clearly better than the average Senior.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

Those are different concerns. Maybe you don't like what they do with their innovations, but they are bankrolling and directing quite a lot of sota research.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

Are you saying that Google, Facebook, etc have not been innovating over the last years? What does the landscape look like if you remove these companies' contributions from the public sphere?

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

Ironically, I don't know what "the subcontinent" refers to. Gatekeeping and in-speak happens naturally in every context.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

I would be careful with the "if they do it it must be sensible" reasoning. There are a lot of reasons that modeling firms using homo-economicus and perfect markets doesn't pan out.

hiptobecubic

4 anni fadiscuss

One thing I never understood is that star fleet and the federation are somehow post-scarcity utopias, but you still have "gold-plated latinum" driving a huge underground criminal counter-culture. What's the point? The ferenghi should be having a cultural existential crisis, but instead they are happy just charging people for drinks that can be replicated freely.

hiptobecubic

5 anni fadiscuss

I have literally never met anyone express (2). Any time anyone needs a recipe site they immediately start complaining about it, unprompted.

comments