Comment by spolsky | Hacker News Reader

Comment by spolsky | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I love the way people on the Internet always find a way to misinterpret every post in the worst possible way, no matter how little sense they make.

After reading a detailed article about how we spend over $5000 to make sure our developers are comfortable at work, do you really think that we then CHAIN them to an Aeron chair and REQUIRE that they use 30" monitors even if they prefer sitting cross-legged on the floor with a 13" laptop?

OK, maybe you believe that. We have bought beanbags and those big bouncy balls for people. We have bought Embody chairs for the rare person who doesn't like a (properly fitted) Aeron chair. If anyone wanted a 13" laptop instead of a 30" monitor, you'd say the word and in 5 minutes you'd have a 13" laptop.

So, this impression you have of Fog Creek as a veal farm with identical programmers all being chained to their identical, Joel-Spolsky-Favored desks is entirely in your own imagination. It sort of reminds me of when I blogged about how we have free lunch and a bunch of people whined about how they don't like to eat with their co-workers. That's nice, some people don't, and that's fine. I never said that the free lunch was mandatory. It's almost bizarre to assume that a company that bends over backwards to make people happy and productive at work is actually some kind of evil plot that would "make you go absolutely bonkers."

I earned a degree in Fine Arts many years ago, and one of the hardest lessons to learn was to listen to your audience. The artist always had a message to send, and the audience usually got a different message.

As the originator of any message, it is important to hear the feedback and respect that feedback. Telling your audience that they got your message wrong shows disrespect for the audience, and a misunderstanding of how communication works.

Try clarifying the message instead of dismissing the audience.

On the internet, where many thousands of people may read an article, it is not possible to make everyone understand your point as you intend it. This is especially true in the geek crowd where many of us insist on being pedantic, nitpicky jackasses who seem to willingly misread in order to find something to argue about.

Appending "of course there are exceptions" and "this is just a generality" and "your experience might differ" to every thing you write in an attempt to appease the nitpickers is a recipe for crappy writing. It's also a doomed effort, as the nitpickers will not only still nitpick your original points, they'll nitpick your concessions as well.

After reading a detailed article about how we spend [...] do you really think that we then CHAIN them to an Aeron chair [...]

The place that I worked that had such nice equipment basically did exactly that: you were given your standard issue equipment with virtually zero flexibility (amusingly other than keyboard and mouse, just like your setup).

That said, the impression mostly comes from the way that you write about the place. You use a lot of absolute terms. There's a lot of talk about best and ideal and happy and then very precise definitions of those things. This gives readers the impression that while you have a very luxurious office, that it's also one that's quite rigid.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if that wholly misses the mark. You're obviously a really smart guy that wants to do well by your employees, and good on you for that. But it also sounds like you're running a grand experiment at FogCreek where you're (mostly by fiat) deciding what you think is best for a company's culture. That may actually produce a place that for the type of folks that get hired there really clicks. I don't think I'd be one of those sorts.

and then very precise definitions of those things.

I understood the post in a very different way. There were no definitions, but lots of concrete examples.

It is a staple of writing guidelines that one should be concrete rather than abstract, specific rather than general, etc. The reason for this is that it is easier for people to reason up to the general principle than down to the specifics.

The concrete examples make it more understandable.

The place that I worked that had such nice equipment basically did exactly that: you were given your standard issue equipment with virtually zero flexibility

This sounds to me like a place that grabbed the "what" and missed the "why". The two questions I would want any company I work for to ask are, "Why would our developers want to be productive for us?" and then, "What do they need to be most productive?" in that order. Give me a reason to be productive and then make sure my equipment doesn't hold me back.

The problem is a lot of people skip the first question and jump straight to the second. I personally believe they do that because the second question is quantifiable. The article is called "The Price of (Dev) Happiness: Part One" and it gives a price at the bottom. There is something a manager can put in Excel and show to superiors.

However, the "why" is more nebulous and harder to enact. Change company culture? Might take months, or years if it's even possible. But I can order $6,174 worth of equipment in an afternoon.

And this isn't just a problem in IT or even in business. There is a ton of information out there about how to lose weight. The "what" is easy to find. But people (including myself) are still overweight because they have no compelling "why".

So when I read this article, I read as a description of "what". And I think there needs to be articles about the "what" just like there needs to be information about how to lose weight. However, I am going to try to not let myself be enamored by it when deciding on a new job. I'm looking for the "why" as well.

It seemed clear to me that Joel was intentionally choosing the most expensive instance of each item (chair, monitor, desk, etc.) that a developer could reasonably want, not to suggest that every developer needs his specified setup, but rather so that he could put an absolute upper bound on what it could possibly cost you to keep a programmer happy. It was a mathematical exercise, not a recommendation.

FWIW, I really appreciated the post, Joel. I'm actually in the process of buying a lot of this stuff for myself due to accepting a new telecommuting job. I need to furnish my home office, and as understanding as my wife is, it's hard to explain to her why this costs what it does. I probably won't spend what you do at FogCreek, but it at least relieved me of the feeling that I was misspending our money. (My tentative stack for those that care: MacBook Air, Thunderbolt Display, GeekDesk, and ? for chair)

The problem with viral* marketing is that you give up control of the message.

* (or whatever the correct term is for HN-linked recruitment-ads-as-blog-posts)

Exactly: "But I wrote an article about how great our company was!!!"

Joel, let me introduce to a wonderful phrase: Haters gonna hate.

People who abuse that phrase probably don't improve as quickly as people who use it sparingly.

'Haters gonna hate' is all very cute, but seems to be interchangeable with 'I don't listen to criticism'.

I'm really interested in your next post about "real cost of private offices"; please do this post before I pick our offices.

I strongly prefer private offices, but it looks like the only cost effective way to get this is to rent a 10BR house for $10k/mo and have enough space for ~20-30 developers in a mix of private and semi-private (shared) offices, conference rooms, etc.

I agree, but you've clearly had one cup of coffee too much.

A little offtopic: Are your lunches vegetarian?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com