| ▲ | quantadev 3 days ago |
| Lots of times it's just ordinary office politics, or the boss likes one person more than another, or isn't "technical" enough to know when he's being manipulated. Because often managers aren't developers themselves, so they don't know which developer is telling them the best advice, when two developers disagree. |
|
| ▲ | taeric 3 days ago | parent [-] |
| And to be fair, often times it is against the senior's judgement, but if off the critical path can be a decent gamble. The hubris of junior engineers accomplishes a lot. |
| |
| ▲ | quantadev 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, it's true great developers can 'reinvent' things and do a great job of it, but the problem is that every line of code in a project is an efficiency drag forever moving forward. It always has to be maintained, updated, and managed by someone. Developers should be measured by how many lines of great code they can delete, not how many lines of great code they create (<-- but don't take this literally of course, it's just making a point) | | |
| ▲ | taeric 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Right. My "to be fair" is largely similar to "devil's advocate." The caveat of, "off critical path" is a heavy lift, too. My view was to give projects a form of risk budget. If possible, do things same way as last time. Any deviation is a risk. Can have rewards, sure. But if there was a known way to do it already, be budgeted to pivot back. |
|
|
