I should have marked mine more clearly as a “first pass” from the start.

Worked with too many hotshot folks to trust future/past humans quite that much.

Once in a while, I’ve even been that hotshot guy. Definitely not excluding my own “oh that was prod…” adventures when I worry about humans, didn’t mean to come off like I think I might have.

But interesting, and certainly worth kicking around.

In green fields projects, this makes a fair bit of sense at initial reading, tentatively.

But new code becomes old code, and then builds on the quality / discipline / cowboy status of the last person to touch the code, in a complex and interlocking way.

I can’t say I’d be excited to find a partially converted existing codebase of this. But in fairness, I’m on my couch on a Sunday and haven’t actually worked through your examples (or read the original paper). I see the benefit to having both types of extensibility, obviously. Just not sure it outweighs the real world risk once actual humans start getting involved.

I don’t know a single person who can’t say they’ve never taken a single “good enough” shortcut at work, ever, and it seems this only works (efficiently) if it’s properly and fully implemented.

A hard timeline on commit strikes me as less than ideal.

People are people. They have issues, they screw up, but they still write good code.

Seems like a brutal metric that encourages minimal commits without real change.

Appreciate you pointing out those examples - while one could argue errors in judgement, going with what one knows allows for getting stuff done NOW.

Have to say, FB and G examples resonate most with me because while Java is hardly “rapid,” given a well-defined objective I can bang out PHP or Python to accomplish it quickly, and then iterate efficiently.

That was doable long before the idea of iterating quickly / failing big / etc entered the public consciousness. Just not in Java…

Are they based out of the PNW? Now that I think about it, I may actually have interviewed with them at one point.

ETA: Yeah, pretty sure it was them, they’re PT and have a 425 DID for sales, and the company name is wholly unrelated to the product. Had forgotten about them entirely, and would have had the same reaction as OP to getting that email now.

And it probably is the sw product the email was referencing, since Bartender is capitalized.

Ouch… This should never be possible, in any world. If the password can be emailed, it can be seen. If it can be seen, it can be stolen.

I agree - I don’t even sub to all that many communities, and just had to move instances this week - it was a clunky process to say the least.