> What this meant was that instead of leaving nitpicky comments, people would just change things that were nitpicky but clear improvements. They'd only leave comments (which blocked release) for stuff that was interesting enough to discuss.
This is my dream; have only had a team with little enough ego to actually achieve it once for an unfortunately short period of time. If it's something that there's a 99% chance the other person is going to say 'oh yeah, duh' or 'sure, whatever' then it's just wasting both of your time to not just do it.
That said, I've had people get upset over merging their changes for them after a LGTM approval when I also find letting it sit to be a meaningless waste of time.
I would settle for accurate estimates being a requirement if sticking to the estimate and allocations is as well. Every project I've been a part of that has run over on timeline or budget had somebody needling away at resources or scope in some way. If you need accuracy to be viable, then the organization cannot undermine the things that make it possible to stay on track.
Also, if you need accuracy stay away from questionable vendors of 3rd party products, as much as possible since they are chaos generators on any project involved.
In my work we have our core banking system designed in 80s on top of Oracle DB so everything is just boxes around it, with corresponding flexibility towards modern development methodologies. The complexity of just doing a trimmed copy of production servers for say user acceptance test phase is quite something, connecting and syncing to hundreds of internal systems.
Needless to say estimates vs reality have been swinging wildly in all directions since forever. The processes, red tape, regulations and politics are consistently extreme so from software dev perspective its a very lengthy process while actual code changes take absolutely tiny time in whole project.
I get ~weekly crashes using an Nvidia card with arch/hyprland, but honestly it's less problematic for me to deal with than windows updates. I can format and rebuild my machine from scratch in less time than windows takes to download and perform an update.
Flawless experience on non-nvidia hardware though.
That's why I keep using Gentoo and X11 to handle my three GPU setup. An Intel iGPU, an AMD dGPU on the same package as the Intel CPU and a RTX 4060 Ti eGPU connected through Thunderbolt.
Only have issues with it on my machine with an Nvidia card. Understand that it can be unstable and accept that when it happens - but with AMD/integrated graphics I don't have the same problem.
Either way, only serves to further the point that Linux is in a pretty good place and the experience should only be better on more stable options.
I don't have that problem with Arch+COSMIC, which has the tiling you get with Hyprland but without the overly complex configuration. You can also switch to floating windows with one button if needed.
Sure, if the warning levels are poorly tuned I might configure my LSP to ignore everything and loosen the enforcement in the build steps until I'm ready to self review. Something I can't stand with Typescript for example is when the local development server has as strict rules as the production builds. There's no good reason to completely block doing anything useful whatsoever just because of an unused variable, unreachable code, or because a test that is never going to get committed dared to have an 'any' type.
An example I like to use are groups that put their autofmratter into a pre-commit. Why should I be held to the formatting rules for code before I send my code to anyone?
I'm particular about formatting, and it doesn't always match group norms. So I'll reformat things to my preferred style while working locally, and then reformat before pushing. However I may have several commits locally that then ge curated out of existence prior to pushing.
Or you can just learn a handful of puzzle patterns in exchange for more job opportunities that would have the potential for higher overall pay. Seems like a fair trade to me.
It just feels obstinate to me. Most people will jump through all sort of bureaucratic/performative hoops when they're in a job to keep it or angle for promotions/minor raises, but this one that has a much higher average RoI turns them off. If you put your foot down on that sort of thing too then fair enough I suppose.
To be fair though, I don’t really want a Big Tech job. Several of the FAANGs, especially Facebook, are morally objectionable to me and I would switch careers before working for them. Most others have shitty working conditions with in-office policies, open office layouts, etc, that are detrimental to me getting work done.
So it’s not just about the financial RoI for me.
And I think I’m at least consistent: I’ve never been one to jump through hoops for raises or promotions either.
I'm a fan of writing tests that can be either. Write your tests first such that the real dependencies can be run against. Snapshot the results to feed into integration test mocks for those dependencies so that you can maintain the speed benefit of limited test scope. Re-run against the real dependencies at intervals you feel is right to ensure that your contracts remain satisfied, or just dedicate a test per external endpoint on top of this to validate the response shape hasn't changed.
The fundamental point of tests should be to check that your assumptions about a system's behavior hold true over time. If your tests break that is a good thing. Your tests breaking should mean that your users will have a degraded experience at best if you try to deploy your changes. If your tests break for any other reason then what the hell are they even doing?
Same. I have a tmux-sessionizer like script that when I open a new tmux session for a project will automatically build out all the standard windows and pane setup for the type of project it is. Start neovim or rider, the dev server/browser if it's hot reloadable, start a test daemon to rerun tests on uncommitted file changes, etc.
If it's something I'm going to need most of the time when I open that project type then I automate it from bash scripts using simple identifiers like whether a go.mod, package.json, *.sln, etc exist. If you want to get even fancier then you could make scripts specific to each repo with a fallback, or make it search the existing sessions and close out any competing ones that would use the same ports or images. It's one of those things that does truly save 30 seconds multiple times a day, with minimal setup time for new projects once you know how you always structure your dev environment.
Something missing is the confidence that comes from being perceived that way as well. You're a high performer at a high prestige/competitive school - you're going to feel more like you can do everything the other successful people from that school can do compared to someone from a no-pedigree state school who wouldn't have access to those role models or tracks to see what's possible and be more likely to just go with the flow and accept a safe job offer.
Even if we assumed that there was nothing special about the capabilities of people who finish Ivy League educations, that's still a powerful effect. Add in that they are either competitive enough or have well connected enough families to get into said school, and it's a multiplying effect on top.
This is my dream; have only had a team with little enough ego to actually achieve it once for an unfortunately short period of time. If it's something that there's a 99% chance the other person is going to say 'oh yeah, duh' or 'sure, whatever' then it's just wasting both of your time to not just do it.
That said, I've had people get upset over merging their changes for them after a LGTM approval when I also find letting it sit to be a meaningless waste of time.
reply