|
Pixelboy posted:It's really not, and Microsoft hasn't used it for years. Also, if you can't see the definition of a local var from anywhere in its entire scope, your function is almost certainly too big.
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Rubellavator posted:TDD people are like vegans. They kill babies via malnutrition?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
leper khan posted:I’ve had my own office twice. It’s not that uncommon, and it’s incredibly good for productivity. Once with a company of size ~10; once of size ~150. It's incredibly uncommon in companies of any appreciable size below director level (though I have to hand it to a few companies I've seen that make everyone outside of c-suite eat the open plan dogshit).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:I like that it's easy to engage my co-workers ad-hoc instead of having to quietly knock on the door in the hopes that they're a) there, b) not on a call, and c) ok with being disturbed. If their door was closed, they probably didn't want to be disturbed. Think about that occurrence rate next time you decide to go all open plan collaboratey on heads down engineers and interrupt their flow state in an open plan office.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:Personally, I would rather have my current team in its current state work out of the same office and would only hire remote if I was really crunched for labor or was hiring for an extremely specific set of skills. Are you at the management level? Your posts make a lot more sense if so. Micromanagement and over-involvement are common traits of relatively new managers, and I don't doubt your job seems easier with people co-located in an open plan office.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:Entirety of SA: What is this middle ground you speak of Day-to-day first-come, first-serve offices. After the offices are taken, there is only cafeteria-style open-plan bench seating for all remaining staff, from developers to sales to facilities and mail clerks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:Disagree 100%. Dismissing concerns over employee maturity and team process is one of those things that people who think their poo poo doesn't stink do. I'm glad if remote works for you but I wouldn't hire you if that's your sticking point. Sorry, not sorry. So you'd rather have immature employees that can't follow processes than someone who wants to work remote?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Asymmetrikon posted:Yeah, we'd need like, a union to be laborers Software engineers having a union would at least be a very clear signal to anyone decent to stay the gently caress away from that company. Engineers are only being exploited by lovely companies, the companies you want to work for are showering their workers with money and benefits.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
So all you union lovers, why don't you go ahead and found one? See how that goes? If you can organize enough people you can probably succeed, all you have to do is convince people to risk their cushy jobs in exchange for likely industry infamy, paying union dues, and nebulous promises about how it will actually be good for them?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:I think our union needs to impose a strict and exhaustive test of competency, and no one should be legally allowed to accept money for programming a computer unless they pass it. gently caress yeah, get over the entrance exam, get seniority, then coast until your pension fund collapses from mismanagement. You could even race the pension against your company and see which one breaks first!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Nah gently caress you, back up and defend this poo poo. If the "good" companies are so thrilled to be showering their workers with money and benefits why the gently caress did a cabal of billionaires bother to collude and depress their wages? Because they can get bigger yachts that way. I only claim that unionization is not going to help the problem because when the incentives to work hard to get ahead go away and are replaced with rules lawyering and seniority bullshit, overall productivity hits the shitter and there go the wages. Edit: and my original claim that only lovely companies are exploiting their engineers stands. Giving someone 300k total comp instead of 350k is not exploitation. baquerd fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:I'd gladly contribute to a few rich white men losing some money by slacking at work. Who wouldn't? But in the meantime there is still capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:i was in a technical union for almost a decade (IATSE). none of the union horror stories ever came up and the worst thing about the union was our lovely dental plan. a+++++ would pay dues again This IATSE? https://www.unionfacts.com/local/employees/172/IATSE/0/ Compared to good companies, they are paying pittances. I also don't know how you can claim it is a technical union unless you mean "technically" a union here in the "Working in (software) Development" thread.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Traditionally, a tiny group of people owns a business and undemocratically makes all the important decisions for everyone else of what to produce, how to produce, where to produce, who produces, and what to do with what is produced. Sounds like Holacracy, which fails horribly at scale: http://nslsfacts.org/2017/09/26/lost-utopia-why-did-holacracy-fail/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation That company does almost entirely labor and other physical goods and services. Not software.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 03:21
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Tech worker coops exist. Any examples an average person is vaguely likely to have heard of? I admit I could be totally wrong, but why do you think that given the vast array of smart and motivated individuals across the industry, these are virtually unheard of? How do you explain that worker coops and unions comprise an overwhelming minority of the workplace? JawnV6 posted:Yes, yes, it's only through these "unions" that incentives to work hard and get ahead go away, capitalism is also a magical talisman to ward off seniority bullshit from having any sway whatsoever. Watching all your patents get sucked up and never executed, watching a chummy middle manager abscond with bonuses for wringing his workers talent dry, none of these suppress incentive structures. That sucks too, and unions may be a good alternative in those kinds of workplaces (like I said - one hallmark of a lovely tech company/management would be that unions exist).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Xarn posted:Please do tell what companies are good. It changes over time, not just company to company but group to group within a company, and it's very dependent on the type of atmosphere you like to work in. This makes it very important to do your own individual research and engage the company in the interview process. My dream job might be your nightmare and vice versa.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:So if companies change so much, even within companies, then there's nothing wrong with working at several jobs in the space of 5~10 years? If you jump ship to greener pastures? That's expected these days. Personally I like to see 2-4 years or so in most positions, tending towards the higher range for lead engineers. If you show career progression though, the time frames don't matter as much, and a short stint here or there isn't a deal-breaker. Someone who consistently works for less than 2 years at each position over the last 4-5+ positions is going to make me question them on that, the more so the shorter the stints. Someone who has consistently cycled through a position a year or more as an employee is red flag city. Managers in particular should demonstrate longevity because manager turnover really hurts morale and shakes things up in often unfortunate ways.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Xarn posted:You have said that good companies shower their employees with perks on their own and do not try to gently caress them over. I don't know who you are, what your skills are, what you're looking for, or what you enjoy. Accordingly, I can't recommend you a place where you'll be great and showered with perks and money. There's no one company that's great for everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:It's amazing that this list goes from innumerably many awesome companies just sloshing buckets of cash on rando code monkeys to a scant few that depend wholly on the individual person, seemingly entirely dependent on the last quoted post. I didn't think I needed to qualify that you needed to also be a great employee at a "good company" to qualify for lots of money, but apparently I did. Huh. I'm not sure at all where you got the impression I thought people could walk off the street and be handed buckets of cash. I love where I work and feel I'm very well compensated. I would absolutely turn down on its face one of the Robert Half salaries that was posted a bit ago.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:You don't need to qualify anything, you need to start naming companies. Qualifying things, and taking quite the attitude as you pick out yet another throwaway line to justify Not Naming Companies, is what's aggravating about this current discussion. Like this really shouldn't be difficult, you split the entire world into two piceces here: Do you want me to name companies so you can apply to them, to tear them down, or what? I don't see how naming specific companies will benefit the discussion compared to keeping things abstract.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:I dunno, if you just wanna carelessly toss out wrong poo poo and refuse to back it up with so much as a "smaller companies are better" and hang around the thread with your whole rear end out that's on you. Naming a company would be a quick way to filter through some of those qualifications and understand where you think the exploitation is smaller or at least tolerable. Giving out any qualification besides "300k," the only actual fact you've attached to this raft of poo poo, would also be good! Do you have a counter-argument or are you just yelling at clouds here? You seem to assume that I fully understand your viewpoint and argument, but I assure you I do not. Can you please explain it to me? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2018 02:58
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Started at my new new place this week, and I don’t think I’ve seen a more depressed team. Time to make a one hour weekly meeting about how to consolidate and reduce meetings.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 00:35
|
|
The codebase isn’t the worst I’ve seen, but the others seem almost resigned to working on it. Copy-pasting code for repetitive tasks and changes abounds, and I don’t even want to think about the JavaScript. Plus, I swear that 1/3 to 1/2 of my time here this week was spent in meetings.
|
JawnV6 posted:This isn't some made-up culture war BS, it's a measured effect. Watch out, that link is from 2016, take it slow. Like it's a genuine appeal to increase the efficacy of teams, not some nefarious plan to stuff OSS projects with sub-par folks or whatever. Yes, but: https://hbr.org/2016/09/diverse-teams-feel-less-comfortable-and-thats-why-they-perform-better It's very unclear that as an individual developer, you will personally be happier or otherwise better off in a highly diverse environment.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Not trying to be glib but: so what? Are anti-CoC folks ever couching their distaste as a personal comfort issue or caring about happiness? I've literally never seen that tack, it's generally framed as "this CoC is a distraction from the Real Work" with an optional "gently caress your feelings" vibe. The focus is on efficacy, not any of these concerns. Well, now that you've seen the argument, are you saying it's invalid to want to maximize personal happiness in one's job?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:I'd be perfectly fine if the anti-CoC folks were genuinely asserting they prioritize their lack emotional discomfort and prefer to work alongside those of their own race to the detriment of their success. It'd be awesome to see that level of candor, can you provide a link? I've increased my prioritization of a lower-stress work life in recent years. Race and gender don't really factor into that personally, but I find it frequently frustrating working with people who have language barriers or who come from very different cultures. Going from an environment that was highly diverse in that sense to a place that was mostly Americans greatly increased my personal happiness.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:I, too, find it stressful when a person isn't white near me. How did you get to this from what I wrote? Is your knee ok being jerked around that hard?
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Are you saying FYGM is a perfectly OK attitude to have? The added stress is mutually shared by all involved. The only entity being told to gently caress off more unilaterally is perhaps the business and its profit motives (whether that be artificial wage depreciation and/or improved outcomes).
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
withoutclass posted:Y'all acting like you can't be frustrated while also not acting like an rear end in a top hat. Lmao Indeed, that is where most of the stress comes in - holding in frustrations because you'll look like a culturally insensitive rear end in a top hat if you express them honestly.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:At no point does any referenced study address the "stress" of asking an accented colleague to repeat themselves or follow up on email. baquerd, what was your justification for tossing those in and pretending they're germane to the discussion? It seems to have nothing to do with the link you posted. It is not appropriate for the researchers to draw the conclusion that people overestimate conflict from the evidence presented. In social situations, perception is reality. That is to say, if everyone in a group believes there is increased tension within that group, then there is increased tension by definition. As the article effectively notes, it is the presence of diversity itself that causes this increase in perceived tension. Of course content matters as well, but diversity alone causes tension: "Teams of four white men and four black men were seen as having equal levels of relationship conflict, but the diverse teams were seen as having more relationship conflict than the homogeneous teams, even though everyone had read the same transcript."
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Shirec posted:baquerd, what is the ultimate point of this thread of conversation? To justify yourself in your choices? To prove that like should stick to like? I want people to know it's OK to not love all forms of diversity all the time. There is no single workplace environment that works for everyone, and attempts at the concept really ought not to be forced on people in private companies. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:lol like I'm taking your research suggestions after your blatant misrepresentation. Defend injecting your anti-accent policy with the link you used to trash All Diversity that I'm pretty sure you didn't read. I've don't believe I've misrepresented anything, but as you were the only person to actually attempt to discuss things before joining the ad hominem train, thanks for that at least. If you're saying you're not actually for all forms of diversity all of the time though, what are the exceptions?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:I'd encourage you to actually read my posts and engage with something I quoted the parts of your posts I engaged with. As for strawmen, have you seen most of the other posters? Regardless, I used the term love in hyperbole and I simply mean the belief in the general importance of diversity over competing concerns. Is that inaccurate, or how would you put your position? Shirec posted:As far as I've read in this thread, no one is saying you need to love it. You can internally think whatever you want, as long as it doesn't affect how you are treating others. As a developer, and in general, it's always a good idea to stay calm and treat others well. It's an important life skill, but if it's possible to avoid active and constant use of this skillset and instead relax and be oneself that can increase happiness. Putting personal comfort above others is just a matter of degree unless you live an impoverished life of charity. It's not a binary option.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
CPColin posted:
So it's bad to want to just live the culture I grew up with? I'm not talking about ordinary kindness, I'm talking about appearing to be calm and kind when someone is making your life actively more difficult than it needs to be.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 23:47
|
|
Holy poo poo
|
CPColin posted:Yes. Your culture is bad and you are bad. Woah, cultures can be bad and I can freely discriminate against those ones? Is there a master list? How do you get your culture approved?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
JawnV6 posted:
Ah, there is the disconnect. I used CoC (which I know very little about) to go into a tangent on whether it is ever OK to purposely avoid active diversity efforts and inappropriately conflated your position. Sorry about that.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Think about how stupid this statement is for like 2 seconds, jesus. Besides how stupid what you literally said is, it's really obvious to everyone here that you don't actually mean cultural, you mean race and gender. You want to just work around white men. Nope, no particular problems with any races or genders, including trans people. I just like working predominantly with people who grew up in American culture, as I explicitly stated previously and as you say is fine. A few people from other cultures is also fine, but when I'm working with 75% Indians, that's not an environment I want to work with because their culture has taken over that group. Cultural references, dominance interactions, saving face - there's a lot to stress you out and no need to sign up for that if you don't have to or aren't interested. Shirec posted:Do you not also see the danger of making ill informed decisions because you had no one but people with the same mindset to ask? We see over and over again the results of that. Lots of products developed, ads created, all that jazz, where anyone not a cis white male would have raised a hand to point out problems. Yep, also called out this specifically as something I'm willing to accept, though it would be pretty weird if things got down to cis white males (as I would no longer be included either!)
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:So here's the post where I think things started getting really out of hand. The most charitable possible interpretation of it is that strong accents are hard to understand in teammates. Oh poo poo, people can have different experiences which are equally valid? Wait, that seems to be the opposite of your claim here. I'm done for at least the night, this discussion is just a weird circle jerk now.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Taffer posted:Yes, definitely. "typing fast" is not exactly a requirement for programming but you will definitely thank yourself later for learning to do it the right way. If you learn to do it correctly, speed will come naturally over time. You will also come across as incompetent if given a coding test on a computer and are hunting and pecking.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Sometimes your boss seems more terribly insecure that they have no idea how to manage people or write software than they are exhibiting outright maliciousness. When dealing with insecure micromanagers, always tell then yes to their face and couch any of your ideas as slight tweaks on their brilliant ideas. Even if they say no to your face, they may at least think about it and come back with it as their idea. If there is a obvious problem with their ideas, wait for a while and present the problem nicely packaged up for them to "solve". Not that it applies here, but that's how to get in with that sort of person until you can stab them in the back. Sometimes it's worth it if you can set them up for a hard failure with their boss while your rear end is covered and you have a solution waiting in the wings.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2018 00:23
|
|