It sounds like the developer spent a lot of time implementing something that nobody wanted. Drawing the sky accurately may be cool, but it wasn't required in this case. It's also not innovation. It's been done before.
This is like if you were renovating your house and the drywall guy spends a huge amount of time building up round corners, but you just wanted regular square corners. Then on some drywall forum they're bitching about how "all clients are stupid" or something.
And, from the sound of it, the developer confused truth with beauty. Sometimes we’d prefer to see the sky the way we wish it were rather than the way it is.
That’s an aesthetic call, not a “who can do the math” call.
“Good news, I accurately simulated the particulate load in the local atmosphere—so now you authentically can’t read the text on a given smoggy winter morning!”
(FWIW, grace for management decisions notwithstanding, I think what gp did is awesome, and would switch on full realism mode every time :)
This is a wildly unprofessional attitude. Programmers are craft(wo)men. They employ their craft toward creating things people pay them to create.
We aren't painting sistine chapels, we are running the plumbing in the sistine chapels basement. The job doesn't exist to give you emotional fulfillment. A mason doesn't insist that a client who needs a warehouse must pay him to spend a week detailing corbelled brick cornices. He makes a CMU wall, in the cheapest and most efficient way that still gets the job done.
It's profoundly disrespectful when we build monuments to our own ego instead of just getting the work done and it speaks to a professional immaturity of the highest order. That was one of the hardest lessons I learned as a fresh engineer and I see so often others that are just learning it. Sometimes people never learn it.
> We aren't painting sistine chapels, we are running the plumbing in the sistine chapels basement.
Sure, but in plumbing - or any trade - there is a huge spectrum of quality of work. Tons of little details add up that confer the person’s skill level to anyone checking it out in the future.
> It's profoundly disrespectful when we build monuments to our own ego instead of just getting the work done and it speaks to a professional immaturity of the highest order.
When I insist that something must be done a certain way, it’s not for my ego, it’s because I know that a year from now, I will be called upon to fix it during an incident if I don’t do it right this time. I am so absolutely sick of hacky bandaids being thrown on the ever-increasing pile of tech debt. To me, it’s profoundly disrespectful when product tells engineering that yet again, they will not yield time to fix the backlog, and to ship New Feature X.
I've been in the developer's shoes. I've also been in the manager's shoes.
It's not that simple. There's possibly better ways to deal with it, but for safety-critical stuff (like a navigation display in a vehicle), simple is much, much better. In many cases, there's actually laws and liability stuff involved.
I once spent six months, developing an "un-asked-for" WiFi control app for a digital camera, and had it nuked. It worked much better than the shipping app (which was enjoying a richly-deserved one-star rating in the app store).
The considerations had a lot to do with the corporate Process (note the capital "P"), which I sidelined. I thought I could do better, but the people with the hands on the brake, thought different. I didn't kiss the right rings. That's a very real consideration in any corporation.
As a manager, however, I did go to bat for employees that displayed initiative. In some cases, I was successful. In some cases, not so much.
There's so much decision making in companies that comes down to some dingus in management decided that it would Be Bad On Purpose. Fighting that battle is something you can try a few times in your career if you want, but it usually leads to burnout or a resume generating event.
A foundational, core theme about making commercial software, that repeats over and over and I slowly got accustomed to is: companies really don't want these kinds of micro-innovations. 90% of companies are just looking at their competitors, making a checklist out of those products, and asking engineers to check the boxes and go home. They don't care about little details, about craftsmanship and polish, about lint warnings, about "oh, that's a nice touch," or even quality beyond "will the customer return the product?" They just want people to poop out software as fast as possible so everyone can get bonuses and drive around on their jetskis on Saturday.
If you're the kind of developer who likes to "sand and finish the back side of the cabinet," either you need to find a very rare, special company, or do it at home as a hobby.
But it's exactly the thing that makes software "delightful". It's also a huge boost to the developer's appreciation, motivation, productivity, care for the product.
But yeah, if you only care about checking the feature boxes.. Go ahead, make shit software with miserable people, but be sure to prepare to go out of business.
The point is a real skybox is not great for satnav software. It's probably actually worse than a stylised mode, with a predictable colour background for anything that's going to sit on top of it.
> They don't care about little details, about craftsmanship and polish, about lint warnings, about "oh, that's a nice touch," or even quality beyond "will the customer return the product?"
I worked at large companies, and there are reasons beyond that. I've been on the both sides of this fence.
Senior engineers feel the pain of supporting all these features. You created a new streaming API prototype that provides a gradual response, progressively displaying details of the 3D model? Great. But it's 15000 lines of dense code without a lot of explanation. Who is going to support it once you leave the company? Is it secure? How does it work with kiosk-type browsers? Can you write a formal proposal so we can start the review process?
Oh, I see that you're already leaving the company :(
And that's also why startups are often so much more successful initially. They just don't care about the long-term support and YOLO a lot of functionality.
It sounds like the developer spent a lot of time implementing something that nobody wanted. Drawing the sky accurately may be cool, but it wasn't required in this case. It's also not innovation. It's been done before.
This is like if you were renovating your house and the drywall guy spends a huge amount of time building up round corners, but you just wanted regular square corners. Then on some drywall forum they're bitching about how "all clients are stupid" or something.
And, from the sound of it, the developer confused truth with beauty. Sometimes we’d prefer to see the sky the way we wish it were rather than the way it is.
That’s an aesthetic call, not a “who can do the math” call.
“Good news, I accurately simulated the particulate load in the local atmosphere—so now you authentically can’t read the text on a given smoggy winter morning!”
(FWIW, grace for management decisions notwithstanding, I think what gp did is awesome, and would switch on full realism mode every time :)
This is a wildly unprofessional attitude. Programmers are craft(wo)men. They employ their craft toward creating things people pay them to create.
We aren't painting sistine chapels, we are running the plumbing in the sistine chapels basement. The job doesn't exist to give you emotional fulfillment. A mason doesn't insist that a client who needs a warehouse must pay him to spend a week detailing corbelled brick cornices. He makes a CMU wall, in the cheapest and most efficient way that still gets the job done.
It's profoundly disrespectful when we build monuments to our own ego instead of just getting the work done and it speaks to a professional immaturity of the highest order. That was one of the hardest lessons I learned as a fresh engineer and I see so often others that are just learning it. Sometimes people never learn it.
> We aren't painting sistine chapels, we are running the plumbing in the sistine chapels basement.
Sure, but in plumbing - or any trade - there is a huge spectrum of quality of work. Tons of little details add up that confer the person’s skill level to anyone checking it out in the future.
> It's profoundly disrespectful when we build monuments to our own ego instead of just getting the work done and it speaks to a professional immaturity of the highest order.
When I insist that something must be done a certain way, it’s not for my ego, it’s because I know that a year from now, I will be called upon to fix it during an incident if I don’t do it right this time. I am so absolutely sick of hacky bandaids being thrown on the ever-increasing pile of tech debt. To me, it’s profoundly disrespectful when product tells engineering that yet again, they will not yield time to fix the backlog, and to ship New Feature X.
I've been in the developer's shoes. I've also been in the manager's shoes.
It's not that simple. There's possibly better ways to deal with it, but for safety-critical stuff (like a navigation display in a vehicle), simple is much, much better. In many cases, there's actually laws and liability stuff involved.
I once spent six months, developing an "un-asked-for" WiFi control app for a digital camera, and had it nuked. It worked much better than the shipping app (which was enjoying a richly-deserved one-star rating in the app store).
The considerations had a lot to do with the corporate Process (note the capital "P"), which I sidelined. I thought I could do better, but the people with the hands on the brake, thought different. I didn't kiss the right rings. That's a very real consideration in any corporation.
As a manager, however, I did go to bat for employees that displayed initiative. In some cases, I was successful. In some cases, not so much.
There's so much decision making in companies that comes down to some dingus in management decided that it would Be Bad On Purpose. Fighting that battle is something you can try a few times in your career if you want, but it usually leads to burnout or a resume generating event.
A foundational, core theme about making commercial software, that repeats over and over and I slowly got accustomed to is: companies really don't want these kinds of micro-innovations. 90% of companies are just looking at their competitors, making a checklist out of those products, and asking engineers to check the boxes and go home. They don't care about little details, about craftsmanship and polish, about lint warnings, about "oh, that's a nice touch," or even quality beyond "will the customer return the product?" They just want people to poop out software as fast as possible so everyone can get bonuses and drive around on their jetskis on Saturday.
If you're the kind of developer who likes to "sand and finish the back side of the cabinet," either you need to find a very rare, special company, or do it at home as a hobby.
But it's exactly the thing that makes software "delightful". It's also a huge boost to the developer's appreciation, motivation, productivity, care for the product.
But yeah, if you only care about checking the feature boxes.. Go ahead, make shit software with miserable people, but be sure to prepare to go out of business.
The point is a real skybox is not great for satnav software. It's probably actually worse than a stylised mode, with a predictable colour background for anything that's going to sit on top of it.
2 replies →
> They don't care about little details, about craftsmanship and polish, about lint warnings, about "oh, that's a nice touch," or even quality beyond "will the customer return the product?"
I worked at large companies, and there are reasons beyond that. I've been on the both sides of this fence.
Senior engineers feel the pain of supporting all these features. You created a new streaming API prototype that provides a gradual response, progressively displaying details of the 3D model? Great. But it's 15000 lines of dense code without a lot of explanation. Who is going to support it once you leave the company? Is it secure? How does it work with kiosk-type browsers? Can you write a formal proposal so we can start the review process?
Oh, I see that you're already leaving the company :(
And that's also why startups are often so much more successful initially. They just don't care about the long-term support and YOLO a lot of functionality.
Sure.. but all there prototypes don't have to be released. It's part of innovation. And maybe you'll even find a new product or a competitive edge.