Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonas21 | Hacker News Reader

> At large companies no one feels like they own 100% of the code, and each change is very collaborative.

That's how you end up with endless process, design by committee, and having a dozen meetings with all "stakeholders" before actually writing any code.

I'd much rather work at a place where individuals or small groups have a strong vision on the code and product and are capable on executing independently on that. It sounds like the OP would too. But I understand it's a personal preference.

View on HN

I read something about how a lot of 'super group' bands kind of don't do anything truly great because of this type of dynamic. They all know they're good, they know the others are good, and they all have a bit of an ego and don't want to stomp on the others, so they all tend to "go along with it" without getting too pushy. That leads to good, but not great music.

Definitely. Though there are exceptions. Led Zeppelin comes to mind first.

I think part of the idea was that in an actual band that has been a band for a while, they usually find a way of working together that includes "difficult conversations" and saying no, and sometimes listening to one person's vision rather than tiptoeing around egos.

This is the long term way to greatness. In companies and life.

Enterprise software is not art and shouldn't be approached the same way. You want a roller-coaster-like experience, go join a startup

No one said 'roller coaster'. Part of quality software is saying 'no' to stuff, or having a coherent vision, not 'software by committee'.

Only if you have a quality engineer at the wheel though. Otherwise you just end up with horrible software.

I guess that’s why large enterprises hate it, since they’re all about reducing risk.

If they get middling software every time then that’s preferable to the two extremes.

Enterprise software isn't middling, it's usually only barely functional and falls just short of what it should do (i.e. it's shit). Everyone is just so pathologically used to it they think it can't be better. Probably due to the allergy to risk that you mentioned. Ironically risk is eliminated, but in doing so you've just ensured you have consistent problems that can never get better.

> But I understand it's a personal preference.

Indeed. No company size is perfect. There are dysfunctions typical for small companies. There are dysfunctions typical for large ones.

But people have preferences; some things they can handle, other things drive them crazy. What drives you crazy may be different from what drives your friends crazy.

Perhaps everyone should try to work once in a large corporation, and once in a startup, to figure out their own preferences.

Small groups of 1+ with a vision isn't really software engineering though. You aren't building to solve someone else's problem and it's that which is engineering. Turning up to the beach with bricks and cement on a whim with mates to create a small damn because it's your vision? Well that's kind of build it and (hope) they will come.

Or to be kinder. If you are filling your own hole (identified need) you can be more free in your approach. After all only you decide if it's right, finished, a failure or success.

"I'd much rather work at a place where individuals or small groups have a strong vision on the code and product and are capable on executing independently on that"

Isn't that dependent on whether you are the person guiding the code though?

Honestly, not necessarily--there are often many ways to solve a given software problem. If someone else has a vision for the software and a plan to achieve it as a team, as long as I can see that it is looks like a viable alternative I'm generally happy to go along with it. Far better than flapping in the breeze with nobody providing clear guidance or input, in my opinion!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com