[alexmlamb]

Is it just me or does this reasoning not make any sense?

"NASA: 90% of our rocket scientists use the A/C you just fixed, but you can't explain how a rocket works so f* off"

Presumably what matters is whether homebrew is technically significant or relevant, not just that they use it?

[nimithryn]

If anything it's the reverse: "NASA: 90% of our rocket scientists use the rocket you designed, but you can't fix an AC so f* off"

[herostratus101]

I'd think that writing an extremely widely used package manager is good evidence of your competency as a software engineer. Whereas in your analogy the qualification is totally irrelevant to the position.

[musicale]

I think it's just you.

0. The actual job of a software developer is usually to develop software with some real-world use and benefit, not to write cs101 code on a whiteboard while someone watches you and grades you for speed and accuracy.

1. Software is what Google does, and Google does tons of software from tools to infrastructure to services to games. If you created a key software tool that tons of people use at Google to do their jobs, it's pretty relevant.

2. Software isn't like doing routine maintenance on an existing A/C system - it's usually somewhere between inventing A/C and creating a new design for data center A/C systems then building, deploying, and operating it.

[NeverFade]

Without making any judgement about this particular situation, this logic isn't sound:

1. I develop tool X, which is a simple popular solution.

2. Some company Y is hiring engineers to develop solutions that are far more complex and demanding than what my tool does, for instance because they have to support billions of concurrent users.

3. I deserve the job because most of Y's engineers use the simple tool X that I developed, even though the job requires far more advanced skills than I have demonstrated writing X, and I actually don't have these skills and will totally fail at the job if hired.

[palisade]

I think Noah's point was that homebrew wasn't a simple tool. And, not only was it evidence of the developer's capabilities but it was also used extensively by all of the employer's own engineers. A tool they all relied heavily on to get their own jobs done. Making it clear he could create software they found important for their own production. And, made it possible for them to deliver service to billions of users.

He got nervous on the whiteboard when asked a relatively simple question. They proceeded to shut him out of the position, completely disregarding his ample qualifications signified by their extensive use of his product. Which is a kind of tragedy.

Comparing an A/C unit to rocket science isn't an equivalent comparison. I can't think of a good analogy to be honest, but that isn't even close.

No other field I can think of really has the problem ours does. You can either make A/C units and rockets, or you can't.

But, in software engineering, it is highly possible to be able to say..... develop high quality GPS mapping software from scratch used by the Navy. Then turn around and have a company making word processing software reject you because you couldn't write a Mandelbrot fractal generator from memory on a whiteboard with a marker.

The fractal generator has zero to do with their word processing product and will never be a useful test of your abilities. Clearly the guy who made GPS mapping software can figure out how to write a word processor. Not to mention, they already have the word processor written so he'd only be assisting them in maintaining their existing code. In other words, he's already demonstrated his ability to write and maintain code of a high caliber. None of it makes any sense.

I really don't think any other field has this issue. It is weird as hell, and unusually pervasive in our culture.

Edit: It won't let me hit reply on your comment below. I think we've hit the maximum length for this comment thread. But, I'll respond by saying I don't know what position he was applying for. I'm not sure he ever explained beyond that tweet. The first I heard about it was Noah mentioning it. But, if it made their lives easier so they can deliver products on time to their own customers it makes sense they have a position somewhere in their company that would be a fit for him. At the very least it proves he is a good developer. Massive systems like the ones Google creates are made by many good engineers working together to make it possible.

The point was they knew he was a good dev.

[NeverFade]

Our field isn't quite so unique, and the rocket vs AC example is actually perfect.

Both are engineering projects. But one is simple and a solved problem, the other is far more complex.

The fact that many people at Google use Homebrew doesn't automatically qualify a Homebrew developer to work at Google. Maybe Google would develop Homebrew by itself if there was no tool like that available. Perhaps it would do a better job than said developer. Either way, it doesn't automatically imply that you can do whatever it is Google wants you to do just because you developed a tool that some of their engineers use.

Also, let's get real, to say that Google engineers use a package management system to "get their work done" and then describe said PMS as integrally related and essential to their work... more than a little bit of a stretch.

[alexmlamb]

I'm just making a point about the abstract argument. I have no idea about whether Homebrew is technically impressive or not, but it sounds like people think that it is?

[asavadatti]

Your analogy doesn't make sense. He didn't fix the A/C, he invented it

[ramphastidae]

It’s just you. Do you know what Homebrew is? Do you agree with Google’s no-hire decision?