Anon isn't a Microsoft fan
-
Eh, I've had a number of coworkers who ended up working for Microsoft. They were all either terrible programmers or utterly unmotivated to do much actual work. One of them was a guy who did not show up even once at my company for more than a year but wasn't fired, for some unknown reason. Microsoft's inability to produce much of anything in the way of good software is no surprise to me.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with Microsoft's being one of the pioneers of TDD (Test-Driven Development). The idea is that you have a small number of good, experienced developers writing suites of automated tests, coupled with a large number of inexperienced or inept developers who try to write code that passes these tests. Whatever code happens to be good enough is kept and the rest is tossed away. In this model, there is some advantage to sheer numbers even when most of the people you're hiring are pretty terrible at what they do (although these are exactly the kind of employees that can be - and are being - easily replaced by AI).
It's funny to imagine real-world engineering using an approach such as this. Like, imagine a world where they let anybody off the street attempt to build bridges, while the experienced civil engineers spend their time trying to knock them down. You might get a few bridges that actually worked, but your rivers would be clogged with the remains of all the failures.
I've never heard TDD described like this. I cannot even understand how this works from a project standpoint.
"We need a new feature. Todd's written the test already, so everyone just have at it with your fastest implementation; whoever passes first, gets to go to prod!"
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Extend Embrace Extinguish
Such efficiency, they're now skipping extend because it takes competency and straight going from embrace (purchase) to exterminate (shut down).
-
Yeah, they are making games, though usually at the cost of the devs they bought
-
I've never heard TDD described like this. I cannot even understand how this works from a project standpoint.
"We need a new feature. Todd's written the test already, so everyone just have at it with your fastest implementation; whoever passes first, gets to go to prod!"
Reminds me of MCMC sampling, or straight up rejection sampling.
-
Make shareholders happy.
The inhuman monoliths.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Control but also opportunity
-
Speaking of, hope ToW2 has a longer campaign.
-
Eh, I've had a number of coworkers who ended up working for Microsoft. They were all either terrible programmers or utterly unmotivated to do much actual work. One of them was a guy who did not show up even once at my company for more than a year but wasn't fired, for some unknown reason. Microsoft's inability to produce much of anything in the way of good software is no surprise to me.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with Microsoft's being one of the pioneers of TDD (Test-Driven Development). The idea is that you have a small number of good, experienced developers writing suites of automated tests, coupled with a large number of inexperienced or inept developers who try to write code that passes these tests. Whatever code happens to be good enough is kept and the rest is tossed away. In this model, there is some advantage to sheer numbers even when most of the people you're hiring are pretty terrible at what they do (although these are exactly the kind of employees that can be - and are being - easily replaced by AI).
It's funny to imagine real-world engineering using an approach such as this. Like, imagine a world where they let anybody off the street attempt to build bridges, while the experienced civil engineers spend their time trying to knock them down. You might get a few bridges that actually worked, but your rivers would be clogged with the remains of all the failures.
Is it well known that this is how Microsoft practices TDD? Because that’s not the normal practice for TDD. TDD just means you write tests first, but normally the same person writes the tests and then makes them pass.
-
Somewhere along the way we built a system that doesn't actually require you to do or make anything. And that's been absolutely horrible.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It was Jack Welch, and it was during the 1980s 'Yuppie', 'Greed is Good' era.
Fiduciary duty is cancerous in a way that has really accelerated Capitalism. It encourages businesses that would otherwise be entirely sustainable at a small size attempt to grow until they are incompetent, which causes a consistent breakdown/selloff cycle.
Imo this is a function of pensions being purposefully replaced with 401ks. It pinned more and more retirement funds to the performance of a stock market, ostensibly to encourage employees to feel staked in the company stock performance. But it was just a clever way to get away from direct-deposit pension funds.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Embrace, Extend and Extinguish...
Its a Microsoft strategy.
The studio I was just laid off from was super successful and Microsoft has now gutted it with the last layoffs. I don't think it'll be successful for that much longer, morale is now non existent and people don't want to work.
Business decisions made by C suites rarely make sense on the ground.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
-
They a little less pro-trump on the servers at least?
-
Not really. If Microsoft dies, the economy does not really care. It is just another tech company. Lehman brothers thing was affecting the financial system of the world more or less.
Lol, what? Just about every single government agency and most of corporate America is fully reliant on Microsoft software for their office suite, database management tools, SDEs, etc.
-
Somewhere along the way we built a system that doesn't actually require you to do or make anything. And that's been absolutely horrible.
We decided to do everything in the fake-world economy because the real world is too complicated.
-
Is it well known that this is how Microsoft practices TDD? Because that’s not the normal practice for TDD. TDD just means you write tests first, but normally the same person writes the tests and then makes them pass.
I was gonna say, that's not like any form of TDD I've ever come across.
-
Lol, what? Just about every single government agency and most of corporate America is fully reliant on Microsoft software for their office suite, database management tools, SDEs, etc.
That dependency and collapse of financial systems is way different.
Keep in mind that if Microsoft dies, their software does not immediately die. It will be replaced before windows fully dies.
-
My biggest issue with this kind of "TDD" is, you pay two people to write the same code twice. Test-driven can work if done correctly, but this just stupid.
I had a coworker who was obsessed with writing unit tests. He was the lead developer on a project which was supposed to take three months and at one point had gone past the two year mark without producing working code. At one point during a meeting with the increasingly (and legitimately) unhappy client, he blurted out "but we've written six times as much test code as actual code!" He was not exaggerating either. Believe it or not, this made the client even less happy.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Embrace Gaming, Extend Gaming, Extinguish Gaming.
-
That dependency and collapse of financial systems is way different.
Keep in mind that if Microsoft dies, their software does not immediately die. It will be replaced before windows fully dies.
Tell that to the office 360 subscriptions everything runs on these days...
-
Tell that to the office 360 subscriptions everything runs on these days...
I know but a software switch will be way less harmful than collapse of banks
