|
> Whether code is concise, clear and elegant has not been causally related to success, unless that's how you define success, which is not how the market defines it. Reductio: The brain is neither concise, clear nor elegant (as far as we can tell), but it is usable and furthermore it works. It successfully extracts value. Sure, but success is a continuum not a binary switch. Who is to say that the brain could not have been more successful if it was more clear and concise? A body of experience points to code that is not clear and concise being much harder to maintain. True that it is not as good as having hard experimental evidence, but it seems silly to say that demanding code be clear and concise is purely egotistical. > News flash, everyone is smart, some people just aren't as assertive as you, or aren't yet as educated. You could hire them and educate them, but you are so concerned about short term profits that you fail to invest in people, who are inherently valuable and can do anything they set their minds to. I have to disagree with the statement that everyone is smart, but ignoring that, what is wrong with not wanting to train people? If I had to choose between someone who knows the material now and someone who could know it by the end of the year, I would choose the clearly more qualified candidate. If Aaron was complaining about a lack of talent to hire, I could understand blaming him for not investing in people, but he does nothing of the sort. The entire article is him explaining the process that works for him -- so why would he want to change a working process? > Let's select against all the people we don't like by not giving them jobs. Well, of course. If you start hiring people you don't like, then you will have major problems working with them. As Aaron says, "Someone you can’t work with, you can’t work with". I fail to see what the alternative would be in this case. |