Comment by bjourne
8 years ago
> I don't think I agree with this.
> We had a programmer that tried from the start to impress us. They were constantly suggesting new tools, or changes to the system, or trying to abstract some code.
If you had people like that, and you weren't able to utilize their talent, then your workplace sucks.
The right way to go when someone says "We should do $X!" and you don't believe it is to say "Prove it!"
Depends on how disruptive their proving it is going to be. If it's not going to be worth the code turmoil, even if they're right, then no, that's not "the right way to go".
Improvements aren't free. They cost, usually more than just the opportunity cost of the implementer's time. There are lots of ideas for improvement that will cost more than they deliver. If I have someone consistently suggesting them, no, I have no place for utilizing their "talent", and no, it's not because my workplace sucks.
And I'd have no use for people merely following commands and doing the minimum work necessary -- like most employees. We cherish ambition and are not afraid to be proven wrong. We prefer to give people the benefit of doubt, rather than assuming ignorance.
> What they weren't doing was what we asked them to do. They'd put a token effort into that, do it wrong, and then call it done.
I'm not sure I would call that "talent", and based on that performance, I certainly wouldn't want their "improvements" on our systems.