Comment by barrkel
8 years ago
Personally, I have a hard time favouring diversity and safe spaces over good software and solid architecture where the two goals compete. I'm also aware that the competitive streak in me pushes me to excel, and without it - without an element of technological one-upmanship in my personality - I'd be much less ambitious and I'd have achieved far less.
So overall I don't think Bryan is wrong, per se, to take the tack he does within the pool he plays in; it's just a pool for type-A personalities (in the system dev domain), and not the right place to play in if you're starting out, or are otherwise fragile. Build up your skin and chops in smaller ponds first. Stay out of them if you don't feel comfortable swimming there, because the discomfort of competition actually serves a purpose for those swimmers.
(Yes, some people can pursue and sustain excellence without the heat of competition. But not everyone is like that.)
> (Yes, some people can pursue and sustain excellence without the heat of competition. But not everyone is like that.)
Sounds like an argument for pluralism, not for "one size fits all".
I was deliberately invoking the irony of using diversity to promote competitive environments, yes.
I'm not sure how extreme a claim you are making. What you wrote could also be interpreted as asserting that the status quo (macho, competitive, whatever) should be preserved because of the contribution made by guys who thrive on that. And that it's too bad if some other people choose not to contribute as a result.
I can't imagine how collaborators on a single codebase could self-select into different groups with different communication styles. By Conway's Law, the codebase would have to be restructured and factored into parts that the groups could work on in relative isolation. This is a big architectural obligation to incur for the sake of preserving some casual braggadocio or competitive inconsiderateness.