1801
might be a form of Jevons Paradox (thelemmy.club)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
290 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://raru.re/@ocean/116214437024389203

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

I never called them lazy, I stated that the mentality is lazy, which it is. Whether or not that laziness is profit driven, it still comes down to not wanting to put forth the effort to make a product that runs better.

Systemic laziness as profit generation is still laziness. We're just excusing it with cost and shit, and if everyone is lazy, then no one is.

If cost is a justification for this kind of laziness, it also justifies slop code development. After all, it's cheaper that way, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)

    Wouldn't he only be lazy if he's not doing anything else more productive instead?

    He gets payed to do a specific job, and does it the best way possible given the constraints. I don't see how you find lazyness in that.

    The customer simply isn't willing to pay the extra time for it to be optimized, and he ain't doing it for free.

    I don't know which job you do, but do you spend a lot of voluntary overtime just to do things the customer isn't even asking or paying for just because you think it's better?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    Wouldn't he only be lazy if he's not doing anything else more productive instead?

    Of course not. It's rather easy to see how one can choose to be lazy and not do hard work while being "productive" doing easier tasks. But this isn't about the dev, it's about the culture.

    He gets payed to do a specific job,

    Again, stop thinking I'm calling the dev lazy, you're completely missing my point.

    and does it the best way possible given the constraints. I don't see how you find lazyness in that.

    This is the laziness. The constraints imposed by management to get new features out the door at the expense of making their existing features work better is a hallmark of the current development era.

    I'm not even going to respond to the last bit because it's entirely irrelevant to (and completely misunderstands) the point I'm making.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Can you then give me your definition of "lazyness" The dictionary just gives me "the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy; idleness."

    And i don't see it anywhere in this situation. They're asked to do a job a certain way (or for management, to make sure it happens in a certain way), and they do that to the best of their ability.

    Could they do it better from an performance/software engineering standpoint if they had infinite time/budget? for sure. But that's not the world we live in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    In a way I understand him, the culture is too one sided in its values. There isn't a balance or a good middle ground. If you appreciate irony, it's too optimised for "features". For which I generally agree. So the people upholding these values are too lazy to find the balance.

    As an aside, every Dev I know would love to endlessly iterate and improve a single thing. So I understand finding that balance isn't easy either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    The "optimized for features" bothered me a bit of concept.

    I think i now narrowed it down on how i see it: It's optimized for predictability, and lack of need of really skilled people. Real optimization requires real skill, and is inherently unpredictable. You can aim high, but how achievable it is, isn't always clear up front. But the current way, makes software engineering more predictable, and hiring also, you just need average programmers who can more or less use frameworks the way they're intended, and that's enough.

    It's just planning for what you know is predictable, and you can actually promise to your customers. And it does kind of suck, but from an economic/business sense, i can kind of understand it...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    And i don't see it anywhere in this situation. They're asked to do a job a certain way (or for management, to make sure it happens in a certain way), and they do that to the best of their ability.

    Nah, I'm sick of trying to get you to understand that it's not the person I'm talking about, but the mentality of management through the whole process. I don't know if you're just not reading the words I write or what, but I'm not willing to keep repeating the same point to a wall

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent