I've received quite a few. Some, probably deserved; most, likely not. In a few cases, it was -sort of- deserved, but not helpful, or directly harmful to the community. Saying the right thing, in the wrong way, is still saying the wrong thing.
> When it happens I update the post to link to the nasty comment, without judgement, just to shine a light on it.
Not a bad idea. Not always possible, if the comment gets dead'nd. In any case, I do not respond in kind. I'm quite capable of it (recovering troll), but I won't go there. It's not being a "snob." It's just that I've learned that gasoline is an ineffective fire suppressant.
If I'm wrong, I've learned to promptly admit it; in the same venue as the mistake (a pet peeve is private apologies for public attacks).
There is a line though. I feel that I do really good work. I've been doing this for a long time (like, 40 years), and have learned quite a bit, in that time. I've also worked some pretty tough rooms, and for folks that wouldn't accept crap, so I have learned to habitually do decent work.
My general policy is to avoid casting judgment onto others in public. It doesn't help; even if I'm right (not always the case).
But if we're working together, or I am using your stuff, then it might be a different story. I have had people savagely attack me, because I won’t accept garbage. Guilty as charged, but I don’t go Torvalds on them. I just tell them that their work is not acceptable to me, in a respectful manner, if possible.
Nevertheless, I have found that I can always improve, and learn new stuff; sometimes, from the most unexpected places, and being open to these lessons is basic good policy. I become right, by being wrong, and learning otherwise.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment."
Saying that you won’t accept “garbage” is a pretty toxic way of phrasing things. If you say that around the people you work with (especially junior people), they have a habit of interpreting any negative feedback on code as you calling it garbage. Then they start avoiding feedback from you when possible and then everyone suffers.
I’ve seen this pattern play out over and over. It makes what could be a great lead senior engineer just a lone wolf only a few people want to work with.
> feel that I do really good work. I've been doing this for a long time (like, 40 years),
Never substitute tenure for competence, particularly when you are convincing yourself that you do good work.
One of the biggest red flags in hiring is when people defer to tenure as a reason for anything technical. It is very easy to do things wrong or poorly for a long time without even knowing it. So falling into the trap of “I’ve been doing this 40 years and people have paid me for it, so it must be good” is a death sentence.
> One of the biggest red flags in hiring is when people defer to tenure as a reason for anything technical.
You know what the great thing about years of experience is?
It's usually "I hold this $TECHNICAL opinion because it is the result of careful refinement over 20 years."
In some cases it is "I formed this $TECHNICAL opinion 20 years ago, and haven't come across enough evidence to change my mind"
It is VERY RARELY "I formed this $TECHNICAL opinion 20 years ago and dismissed any evidence to the contrary over the last 20 years, while still managing to retain gainful employment".
TBH, if you are seeing people from the third group often enough to use it as a heuristic, chances are it's a poor (or poorly correlated) heuristic that you haven't yet seen for the poor quality it is.
IOW, you are holding an opinion based on your experience, about others who hold an opinion based on their experience.
Holding on to this opinion might even make you part of that third group I listed above.
People who refine their opinion don’t use the years of experience as the reason. They use the actual reasons.
I have never encountered someone who just said, “I don’t do X because I have 30 years of experience and know it doesn’t work” who was able to technically justify their reasoning. It’s always a red flag.
It’s no different than someone who tries to use their rank as a reason for something.
> IOW, you are holding an opinion based on your experience, about others who hold an opinion based on their experience.
>Holding on to this opinion might even make you part of that third group I listed above.
>Very ironic.
You’re really struggling to grasp the point or you don’t know what “ironic” means. Basing opinions on your experience is fine. Basing them on length of experience is absolutely not.
The world changes very quickly, especially software. The older an opinion is on a particular architecture, technology, etc is, the less it should be trusted, not more.
> I have never encountered someone who just said, “I don’t do X because I have 30 years of experience and know it doesn’t work” who was able to technically justify their reasoning.
Honestly, I've never met these people you meet all the time. I'm sure there are developers who have 1 year of experience repeated 30 times, but I assure you that you are more likely to win non-trivial money in a lottery than to meet these people.
And do you know why? Because
> The world changes very quickly, especially software.
The developers who are still programming in COBOL, with no source control, for mainframes that don't even physically exist anymore, are rare.
> The older an opinion is on a particular architecture, technology, etc is, the less it should be trusted, not more.
"Throwing more people at a software project does not make it proceed faster".
Here's the thing - you're using it as a red flag. But your usage is itself a red flag.
Well, a stint working for one of the top-quality companies in the world taught me to develop a fairly thick skin. The Japanese are not gentle, when criticizing each other, and I had the honor to be considered worthy of Japanese-level evaluation.
But be that as it may, I don’t “harsh out” on people; especially in public venues. I may think "garbage," but I'm much more likely to say "this won't fit into the framework in that form." It’s my experience that many of today’s folks get very nasty (and personal), when confronted with even mild rebuke. I can understand why Torvalds goes nuclear, although I won’t go there, myself (I consider it unprofessional).
I remember once, denying a patch (SVN), because the "fix" would have addressed the submitter's particular issue, but also would have broken the functionality for, literally, hundreds of others. I told them that it was a good idea, but I couldn't implement it, as provided, because of that, and suggested that we figure out some changes.
The response was a long, public excoriation, complete with genealogical evaluations of my ancestry, back to the Pliocene.
I decided that, even though they had a point, and we probably could have figured out how to give them what they wanted, after some give-and-take, it wasn't really possible, because of their attitude. I did end up applying part of their request; just not the part that broke it for everyone else (I did credit them in the comments). I blocked them, and we have never worked together since.
I remember a post here, some time back, where a fairly talented young chap, was complaining about not being made a core Linux Kernel contributor, simply because he submitted a good PR.
If we want to be above-average, then we need to be willing to put ourselves into positions, where we will get criticized; and, quite frequently, the ones doing the criticism are far from gentle. It's been my experience that folks at the top of their game, frequently fail to accomodate those that are not at their level. They aren't always right, but they are often worth listening to, anyway, and we don't do ourselves any favors, by reacting badly.
There is definitely something to be said for earning our stripes.
Got the same vibes when reading their comment, basically self identifying as "the one" without admitting it.
The funny thing is that if someone has been doing IT for 40 years, I'd expect them to be generally aware that they might be good at big picture stuff but less so on minute things, as technology, philosophies and approaches change every few years but the general concepts stay the same.
> When it happens I update the post to link to the nasty comment, without judgement, just to shine a light on it.
Not a bad idea. Not always possible, if the comment gets dead'nd. In any case, I do not respond in kind. I'm quite capable of it (recovering troll), but I won't go there. It's not being a "snob." It's just that I've learned that gasoline is an ineffective fire suppressant.
If I'm wrong, I've learned to promptly admit it; in the same venue as the mistake (a pet peeve is private apologies for public attacks).
There is a line though. I feel that I do really good work. I've been doing this for a long time (like, 40 years), and have learned quite a bit, in that time. I've also worked some pretty tough rooms, and for folks that wouldn't accept crap, so I have learned to habitually do decent work.
My general policy is to avoid casting judgment onto others in public. It doesn't help; even if I'm right (not always the case).
But if we're working together, or I am using your stuff, then it might be a different story. I have had people savagely attack me, because I won’t accept garbage. Guilty as charged, but I don’t go Torvalds on them. I just tell them that their work is not acceptable to me, in a respectful manner, if possible.
Nevertheless, I have found that I can always improve, and learn new stuff; sometimes, from the most unexpected places, and being open to these lessons is basic good policy. I become right, by being wrong, and learning otherwise.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment."