|
idk whos twitter that is
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
guy who wrote node.js
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
lol. no wonder its so bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
opinionated, but blunt and honest. I like it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
twitter.com/#!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
0xB16B00B5 posted:opinionated, but blunt and honest. I like it. i like Ruby.  EDIT: Half the languages he lists are interesting because of poor/confusing design decisions. FamDav fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Oct 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
i couldnt remember what dart was then i found out it compiled to javascript and i had a good laugh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
FamDav posted:i like Ruby. people are allowed to have faults, just dont let them ruin your life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
0xB16B00B5 posted:opinionated, but blunt and honest. I like it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:29
|
|
|
rotor posted:compiled to javascript this induces the same revulsion as those human centipede movies
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:people are allowed to have faults, just dont let them ruin your life. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:34
|
|
|
qntm posted:yeah, join a huge faceless corporation this is pretty much looking like the best option
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
tef posted:this is pretty much looking like the best option what are your feelings about connecticut and embedded development. a guy just left to shorten his ridiculous commute and we want to hire someone pdq. also we have a couple of british people, a french guy, a couple japanese guys and a ukranian guy so you won't be the only foreigner
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Tiny Bug Child posted:my pop-up blocker buster So it was you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Serious post: What about working at a startup? I know some friends here in the Bay Area that work for well funded < 25 person startups and they all really seem to enjoy it. New interesting problems, lots of responsibility, not much overhead, everyone is pretty young/laid back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
salted hash browns posted:Serious post: Nothing spells motivation like a huge faceless corp. Try improving your skills and getting into R&D, or try a quality startup. I can't imagine a day where I'm not excited to wake up and code something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
i've worked everywher from little poo poo dial up ISPs in a metal shack to fortune 50 corps and working at the smaller companies is almost universally better you get much more recognition for your accomplishments, there's much less bureaucracy and red tape, the people are generally cooler, sometimes you get paid more, i cuold go on but gently caress i once worked at office max dont do that
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
i'd also like to add if you suck at programming you probably fit in better at a huge corp
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
salted hash browns posted:Serious post: this is nice for the first year or so but normally the investors kick in and then everything goes to poo poo as they rush to return on the investment. i've only seen it happen three times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
Write a book / design a training course on "the cynical approach to software engineering" for a down-to-earth no bullshit way to get into development. You'd rock at this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
AWWNAW posted:i'd also like to add if you suck at programming you probably fit in better at a huge corp yay 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:18
|
|
|
tef posted:this is nice for the first year or so but normally the investors kick in and then everything goes to poo poo as they rush to return on the investment. the other side isn't much better, where its a big success and then everythjng goes to poo poo as they try to scale up to meet demand and people you once knew and respected polymorph overnight into people who wear $600 shoes and talk about implementing best practices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
tef posted:this is nice for the first year or so but normally the investors kick in and then everything goes to poo poo as they rush to return on the investment. Are you saying because after so many rounds the founder loses majority share and that's why the investors have the ability to do this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
rotor posted:the other side isn't much better, where its a big success and then everythjng goes to poo poo as they try to scale up to meet demand and people you once knew and respected polymorph overnight into people who wear $600 shoes and talk about implementing best practices. Yeah but if that happens you'll hopefully make enough cash not to mind. Rare though...
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Meiwaku posted:Yeah but if that happens you'll hopefully make enough cash not to mind. Rare though... as it turns out, once you get past a certain point money really isn't much of a motivator.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:28
|
|
|
basically finding a company that isn't going through growing pains would be best. tef's potted employment history - working in a wee internet cafe (writing code) boss was a sociopath, got signed off. - working in an nmap to powerpoint factory just before acquisition. got signed off. - working in a growing startup. managed to fix their poo poo, and got made redundant because my code ran without breaking. had 8 bosses in 11 months and two warnings. - working in a new startup. the product was bunk, got told 'don't tell the truth to the investors or potential clients'. they still get funding, I went mad and got told by a doctor to leave. - working in a ~3 yo startup. got brought in to rewrite services. did it to make ops stuff better. unfortunately, the improvements allowed us to have a bigger clusterfuck. basically, i've managed to fix a whole bunch of poo poo, mostly subversively, and been driven mad by the poor business decisions. an old boss told me "programmers make the technical decisions, we make the business ones", by that he meant "any important technical decision is a business decision, you chump".
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
salted hash browns posted:Are you saying because after so many rounds the founder loses majority share and that's why the investors have the ability to do this? ha ha no, they never stand up to them and will do anything to pay off the mortgage
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
i'd just like to be in a situation where not only do I have responsibility for things, i actually have the ability to change them. it would be nice to be treated like an adult rather than a delivery boy for programs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
tef posted:an old boss told me "programmers make the technical decisions, we make the business ones", by that he meant "any important technical decision is a business decision, you chump". scale won't change this
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
in a small company, you get away with it because the owners are too busy panicing. in a large company, the business has evolved to remove any autonomy for fear of creating irreplacable workers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
tef posted:i'd just like to be in a situation where not only do I have responsibility for things, i actually have the ability to change them. So this is a huge problem I have with non technical founders/bosses. They essentially see development as a commodity resource and pull this kind of nonsense, not realizing how important talented execution is to a new company. I mean I talk to some people about how they are going to outsource their startups new development. You are going to trust your core business to someone else because you don't understand it? Terrible decision.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
it's just that i kinda see management as a central point of failure and route around it
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
In a big company talented execution isn't really valued because you're an 800lb gorilla. You don't need innovation, just status quo. Supporting all the statements above about how bad developers are good at big companies
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
salted hash browns posted:So this is a huge problem I have with non technical founders/bosses. They essentially see development as a commodity resource and pull this kind of nonsense, not realizing how important talented execution is to a new company. actually this poo poo comes from technical founders too. they do the chronic underestimation of difficulty, and because they're far from the trenches they don't understand why things might be a little more difficult. quote:I mean I talk to some people about how they are going to outsource their startups new development. You are going to trust your core business to someone else because you don't understand it? Terrible decision. this is just loving hilarious though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
tef posted:actually this poo poo comes from technical founders too. they do the chronic underestimation of difficulty, and because they're far from the trenches they don't understand why things might be a little more difficult. I mean it obviously depends on the person but in general I would say technical founders have a much more realistic expectation of scope and are able to guide execution better than some MBA who is all "hurr ~powerpoints~"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
salted hash browns posted:I mean it obviously depends on the person but in general I would say technical founders have a much more realistic expectation of scope and are able to guide execution better than some MBA who is all "hurr ~powerpoints~" i wish. they just think their wishful thinking is more reasonable and so won't listen. 'i have a phd, i know best' 'i've been in this company longer' basically it comes from being in a position of authority without any accountability to the workers, not from being technical/non-technical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
really what I'm trying to say here is non technical founders of tech companies are mostly terrible. It's like starting a pharmaceutical company with no experience in pharmaceuticals, or any other industry. Just because tech startups are more "sexy" doesn't mean anyone can do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
i'm saying that founders are universally terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
tef posted:i wish. they just think their wishful thinking is more reasonable and so won't listen. won't listen to developers raise issues about the product? I'm genuinely curious because I work at a big company but have been thinking about moving over to a startup and would like all the help I can in how to spot the good/bad ones
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
The fun thing in large soulless corporations is that you can usually work super slow and keep a shitload of time for personal stuff during work hours. I worked through a large part of SICP during my work time at my first job in a large place. The downside is that you'll never see yourself 'bloom' in a place like this and you'll have to do poo poo in your free time to feel good about programming. It does let you see your day job as a day job, and it makes it easier to separate your hobby from your workplace. I ended up leaving because I got bored, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2012 02:54
|
|