• 16 Posts
  • 475 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 10th, 2023

help-circle

  • I wouldn’t recommend staying with a company for 17 years. That’s for sure. Best way to get stuck in a company specific niche skill that is not transferable. For the reasons stated you got to keep yourself positioned well skills wise and relevant so you can jump into any role you need at any time.

    Integrity is not for the company. It’s doing things the way you think they should be done and earn your own respect.

    I would say all companies don’t replace with cheaper. Many do. Especially the shitty ones. It’s quite easy to avoid those like the plague. Many did, and learnt the hard way, many have staff that have seen failed outsourcing and are in a position to influence that.

    Soloing knowledge doesn’t keep you safe though as the penny pinching companies will remove anyway and clean up later regardless. It does not keep you safe. It’s a false sense of security. Complacency is a death sentence in software development.


  • Professional integrity. Have you ever worked for a company that got screwed by a consultancy? Vendor lock in and charging scandalous amounts for little offer.

    You are paid for your skills and your time. If you’re confident in your ability and impact, you shouldn’t have to be worried.

    I’m not saying sacrifice for yourself for your company, and if they are a shitty company that would replace you with cheaper, get out, but also, giving nothing for the pay you get is a bit dishonest, and then you are no better than them.

    Plus, you make the case that hiring people is bad and paying a consultancy is less risky.




  • Not perfectly optimised is fine, but non-functional isn’t acceptable. I’ve never seen a quirk personally, and quirks aren’t a good reason to help maintain Google’s monopoly on web standards.

    You may say less than 5% is fine, but it could be the margins in a low margin industry. 2% could be 40% of the profit.

    I haven’t seen a team operate where a senior isn’t checking it.

    Usually the bleeding edge stuff is used by small companies trying to establish themselves because they have nothing to lose and no reputation to protect.

    Plus, when you got Browser Stack, you catch a lot of problems like this.


  • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.mlMtoDeGoogle Yourself@lemmy.mlDegoogle Chromium help
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Because in web development there are compatibility tables of what features work with which browser. If a developer has used a feature poorly supported, they either haven’t done their homework, or intentionally made that call.

    In web development, most reputable Front End Devs would not choose bleeding edge, barely supported features even if the temptation was there because the user comes first. Generally, you wait until it has been adopted by the main browsers (chrome, safari, ff).














  • In agile development. You do a little, release. Otherwise it is too big and may never be done. The fact they committed resources to improve this is a positive. The hope is they build on it and add more options.

    However, if they get trashed for trying, they and many other companies may not try. Why spend money to get a bad reputation when the spending nothing creates less I’ll will to the company. That is ultimately the decision Product Owners and Designers will weigh up.

    I think for progress, the best approach is maybe “positive first step but more options are needed for non-bonary for this to really make players feel comfortable”.

    From a technical perspective, separating pronoun hard coding from the models gives more scope to give more options in the future, however, as someone mentioned, there is a lot of art work needed on assets and animations so the new shapes function the same in all cases.