"The thing you have to remember is that this was before the iPhone was introduced and no one knew what the iPhone would do... At the end of the day, there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make up on volume. And in hindsight, the forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone thought."
It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. "The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut," he said. "My gut told me to say yes."
This definitely is in the right direction, but leaves out a lot of very important things.
I think of a senior developer as someone who is effective. Roughly that means:
* Planning: Ability to take on large, ill-defined problems, define them, break them up, and execute the pieces. A senior developer can take something big and abstract and run with it. They will come up with a few options, discuss them with the team and implement them.
* Execution: When something is planned a senior dev can execute quickly. They make tradeoffs, and they know why. They know where to be dogmatic and where to be pragmatic. They also can code well obviously.
* Communication: Effective developers are great communicators. They probably overcommunicate, gather feedback on non-trivial things, and thoroughly investigate feedback received. People often will say "give me feedback" but what that means is "tell me why my solution is right." For senior developers it's "poke holes in my solution." This can be very evident in pull requests -- junior devs can easily become attached to their solution, become myopic, and be unable to take feedback.
* Leadership: They are aware they're on a team. They view it as a part of their responsibility to mentor others. This can range from pair programming with junior devs, to taking unglorious tasks of writing docs or tests or whatever else needs to be done.
* And finally, they've been burned a lot. They can foresee where the problems will be before a single line of code is written, because earlier in their career they've been burned by a lot of things. An intermediate dev (or perhaps a junior dev) has been burned by poor spaghetti code, and has swung over to nailing everything with the GoF hammer.
Another thing that I have noticed how much of the above applies to senior designers as well.
You're thinking about it wrong. It's not about the complexity of code or any measure thereof, but a simple communication issue.
Telling someone that their code is too complex can very easily be interpreted as a personal affront, especially by more junior developers. It can very easily communicate that they are a shitty developer and don't know what they are doing. When that happens you will get nowhere.
In that situation, the other person feels that they have to defend themselves. They get myopic and unable to see whatever argument you present. They simply will not accept it, or if they do they will resent you for it.
The best way to go about it is to acknowledge their efforts and validate their thinking. Look at why the code is the way it is, and try and understand why it's written that way. Approach the situation not as "I am right, you are wrong" but as "I don't understand this part, can you explain it to me." When they explain and you think it's complex say something like "Ah, yes! That's what I thought it did. It seemed a bit complex so I was wondering if it did anything else. Have you considered x or y?"
The more opportunities you allow to the other person to save face, and the more you value their efforts and work the further you will get.
I agree that socket.io offers little over WebSocket except for backwards-compatibility, but the OP's question was more about why you'd want to use WebSocket.
The really interesting thing is that the Economist has been able to increase their rates while still growing subscriptions. Their digital subscription is as much as print as well. They have been blessed by a wealthy readership that is price-insensitive.
I subscribe and would probably continue to subscribe if they jacked up their rates to $200/yr.
I work at Trello. We actually don't think of Trello as Kanban. Trello at its core is a collaborative list of lists. You can use Trello to implement a Kanban workflow but Trello is not an implementation of Kanban. A lot of people use Trello for things like to organizing their soccer teams where there isn't a hint of Kanban -- each list could be a game and people add themselves to indicate that they want to play.
I think the great thing about Trello is simplifying down to a pure visual metaphor.
Trello is about putting lists of cards on boards. That's it.
You can use it to do all kinds of things, but it's a medium rather than a framework. When I've tried other to-do list apps, or project management tools, etc. they all end up becoming too restrictive. They try to teach you to do the right thing in the right way, not realizing that it is different for different people.
Joel himself once talked about Excel, and how for most people, Excel isn't about spreadsheets, or formulas, or calculations - it's about laying things out in a grid. That's it. People just want to be able to write things in columns and rows, and colour them. And that simple behaviour is incredibly powerful.
> "Trello is about putting lists of cards on boards. That's it."
100% this, for me.
That's how I'm able to get people to use it. They ask a lot of questions about what means what and assume it's more complicated than it is. As soon as they realize that the top level metaphor is seriously just a board with cards, they're like "Oh! that's really cool. I can use this" and they're off.
I don't think that's what he/she meant, I don't even think the 'kanban' was about Trello. It's about taking something relatively simple, then honing it to perfection. That is how you make great stuff - not by building something huge that only works most of the time, and even then only satisfactory. Kanban is about small improvements every day, for many days, applying the power of compounded improvement so to say.
Yeah, I and several people I know are regular Trello users and none of use it for Kanban. For us it's just a simple pipelined workflow tracking tool: todo, doing, paused, done
Some people use it for completely non-tech things, a couple I know use it to track their sales pipeline.
It's pretty amazing that there really wasn't something quite as simple made before it, it seems so obvious in retrospect. The implementation is spot on.
"The thing you have to remember is that this was before the iPhone was introduced and no one knew what the iPhone would do... At the end of the day, there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make up on volume. And in hindsight, the forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone thought."
It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. "The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut," he said. "My gut told me to say yes."
Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/paul-o...