Threads for waltz

  1. 10

    This is weird. I don’t agree at all. Your SPA is definitely the frontend, so is your mobile app. The frontend is does plenty of business-y things and it always will.

    I get the feeling that this author is trying to say that some SPA’s are hard to work on, and that they want to be a “backend” developer while working on an Angular app. I think this article is more about frontend/backend “difficulty” and respect.

    1. 3

      I get that this person is peeved by Big Sur’s usage of a sealed System folder, but I don’t think users are losing out because of it. I develop on a Mac with Big Sur everyday, so does my team, and nobody in our org has had any issues with this. I really think this is a non-issue.

      1. 2

        Orig. Comment: I mean, I totally agree. This article perfectly lays out why I don’t hire women at my company. They can’t be trusted.

        Edit: I don’t know how to constructively debate the huge number of logical fallacies in this god-awful article. This whole thing is pretty anti-woman and I’m surprised to see it here on Lobsters.

        1. 2

          Why not start by naming the specific logical fallacies you see in the article? I posted this on lobsters partially because I think this community has some of the same dynamics that Stuart Reges talks about at his educational institution - namely, that a lot of people view discussion of systematic gender differences that seem to actually exist and be relevant to the number of women working in computer-technology-related fields as by definition anti-woman, and try to use legal and cultural tools designed to fight sexism to turn that kind of discussion into heresy that doesn’t need to be argued against and can be legitimately punished.

          1. 2

            Why you don’t start by mentioning some of these systematic gender differences that are not actually just the product of historic systematic gender discrimination? When people mention these difference, they tend to be either misunderstanding how humans an human society works, or plain BS. And the thing about BS is that it’s an order of magnitude harder to disprove it than it is to come up with, so it’s kind of unfair for you to bring up BS and ask the people disagreeing with you to prove you wrong. It’s your claim, and by the way, it’s a claim that’s contrary to mainstream science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and neither the Damore memo or this article present anything even in the same continent of extraordinary.

            On a slightly unrelated note, the author seems to be puzzled by the fact that suggesting that a class of people is innately inferior creates a hostile environment for people of said class. What I am puzzled by is how can he find this surprising at all.

            1. 1

              And the thing about BS is that it’s an order of magnitude harder to disprove it than it is to come up with, so it’s kind of unfair for you to bring up BS and ask the people disagreeing with you to prove you wrong.

              This article goes into more detail about systematic differences between men and women that seem to exist in the psychological literature and replicate.

              On a slightly unrelated note, the author seems to be puzzled by the fact that suggesting that a class of people is innately inferior creates a hostile environment for people of said class.

              I think it’s a falsehood to describe what Stuart Reges as a statement that women are innately inferior, just as I think it’s a falsehood to describe what James Damore said as a statement that women are innately inferior. All of their claims were about group averages rather than a blanket statement about every single woman or man. In fact, I think their political opponents are incentivized to use phrasing like “suggesting that a class of people is innately inferior” precisely so that they then claim that their speech counts as creating a “hostile environment” - which is a legal definition that requires institutions to take some kind of action against the people accused of creating a hostile environment.

        1. 4

          I wrote the linked essay.

          There are many cases where I wrote something and my views moderated. I used to evangelize open allocation. I still think that it’s an ideal for a creative workplace environment, but I’ve grown older and recognized that it’s not always practical. You couldn’t have an open allocation trading floor.

          My views on Scrum have not moderated. If anything, I’m more convinced that I was right the whole time. Pro-Scrum engineers tend to have a mistaken view that it provides real protection against management. If it did, it might have value. A prioritized backlog does help to introduce sanity. In terms of providing protection from management, it doesn’t. You can’t actually say to a manager, “We’re not doing this because our process precludes it.” I’m sure that Scrum has caused more people to get fired than it has prevented firings. Of course, what we’ve seen in software in the past 5 years is that management has co-opted Agile and Scrum as excuses for micromanagement and brutality.

          All of this said, I don’t that killing Scrum will solve the core problems: business-driven engineering, low status for programmers, and the flooding of the labor market with unskilled replacement programmers (due to the proliferation of boot camps, and abuse of the H1-B program) who will work cheaply and take abuse. Like all fads, it will die at some point. As for the cultural change that it represents, I’m not as sure. Programming is one bad turn away from reverting to the status of being just another shitty office job. Winter is coming, and it’s time to start planning for it, and I think that many people who are strong enough to get out of the technology industry will do so.

          1. 3

            I will say, it does depend on the environment. I’ve seen guys in our German office say exactly “We’re not doing this because our process precludes it.”, and amazingly, it worked. “Sorry, we’re not taking this task because it is not well-defined or prioritized in our backlog.” The problem is it requires huge management and upper-management buy-in, which is very very hard to do, and especially hard to do in countries where workers rights are not a fundamental part of your environment. But in my experience, when you get it right, I enjoy SCRUM.

            1. 2

              I’m curious about your perspective on ‘business-driven engineering’. I have always thought that engineering is naturally a function of business. I’ve felt that engineering is there to serve the interests of the business level. Often times at small companies engineers who have solid business skills can do both jobs, but the split is still there.

              What does engineering independent of business concerns look like to you?

            1. 3

              This was a great read, I’ve been using feature toggles a bunch recently to make multi-stage deploys go a bunch easier. One problem the team has been running in to is that we don’t have a good process for removing the toggles.

              So: How are you being disciplined about removing these flags?

              1. 12

                We’re not using feature toggles at my current job, but my approach in the past was to have three states for a feature. A Feature can be off, on, or not-present. Not present is equivalent to ‘on’, but it also generates a test failure that CI catches. All the features are controlled through a single file which is managed by the PO or whoever owns those things, and the build system notes how long ago the feature was set to ‘on’, after it’s been consistently ‘on’ for a while, it automatically removes the flag; leaving the feature ‘on’, but generating an error which a programmer has to go solve before the build passes clean. That reduces the discipline from one of ‘remember to remove these’ to ‘remember that the build must be green before it can go out.’ The latter is much easier to automatically enforce.