Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewmcwatters | Hacker News Reader

Bull-fucking-shit; you know why Spotify's engineering team does well? Stripe's? Netflix's? Because they have money, they have money so they can buy the best engineers. You ever see a small business development team compete on their level that isn't a bespoke design firm?

In my world, my team isn't an olympic-performing high-end software engineering pack. They don't lead in particular subfields in FOSS in their spare time. So you know what? They need fucking plans.

This article is a glorified, "Well if you're good you don't need process," piece.

View on HN

This is pretty condescending to your team. They might not be rockstar developers, but they are adults and can probably manage their time themselves. You don't need to be the best programmer to manage your time, you just need some common sense. If I were working somewhere where the manager thought I couldn't plan my own schedule, I'd look elsewhere.

Would you please not rant like this to HN? You may have a substantive point in there but you need to make it more thoughtfully.

Could you please elaborate? I don't feel like "like this" and "thoughtfully" are constructive pieces of feedback for comments.

> Could you please elaborate?

'Bull-fucking-shit' was literally the first word in your comment.

And? https://hn.algolia.com/?q=&query=bull-fucking-shit&sort=byPo...

It's basically the online equivalent of spittle flying out of your mouth while berating someone.

If dang asks you to do something politely, there's a good reason for it.

You can find out more about him here: https://blog.ycombinator.com/meet-the-people-taking-over-hac...

I didn't see it that way. The article argues for a very clear and curated Backlog of tasks. If engineers can't define tasks well and PM lacks understanding to structure backlog well then no amount of Engineering Olympians will help.

Yeah. A well maintained backlog with a disciplined approach to changes does miracles.

And Uber has lots of money, but their product is still a shit-show, although, granted that their payments platform has excellent uptime and works very smoothly given the n-to-n model of the system.

It sounds like the product your business is developing is scoped too large for the revenue or market share it can realistically capture. Scope according to money available, then your product, and your team, will be happy for it. The business will flourish too, and maybe you'll feel less stress.

> you know why Spotify's engineering team does well?

> Stripe's? Netflix's? Because they have money

No. Some places have too much money, others enough and then there are those that may have to shut down in half a year. Seen them all, and "engineering aptitude" is completely independent of that.

I upvoted because I partly agree - if you're good you don't need these various methodologies. However, I'm curious - do you think these processes can actually convert a bad team into an ok one?

The processes help coordination and accountability; if they may be improved, the team will improve. Will it become an ok one? It may.

Money gets you to a certain point, and does provide a cushion against certain errors. But if you simply spend money on the best engineers without a plan and shared purpose, they will leave.

If you think this, their only actual plan will be to leave the company as soon as the opportunity arises.

Big difference between these things and no process at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com