
The Eighth Dirty Word – “Just” - forrestthewoods
https://blog.forrestthewoods.com/the-eighth-dirty-word-just-2d2386850cda#.awx35lon2
======
adrusi
_When your first reaction is to interrupt with “can you just” you’re
implicitly calling your co-workers stupid. Because if they weren’t stupid then
they’d have figured out the solution in under a second like you did._

Sure, many common patterns of speech can be insulting if you're this
uncharitable in your interpretation. Just like the speaker should consider how
the listener will interpret their words, the listener should consider the
speaker's intent, and give them benefit of the doubt. Communication is a two-
way street. A more charitable interpretation would be that the "just"-sayer is
actually asking a question: "Can you explain to me why you didn't do _X_ , I
feel I'm missing something". The difference between that question and "why
didn't you just do _X_?" is more a reflection of the tone of the conversation
and the speaker's mood than of the speaker's opinion of you.

Personally I'm always worried about how the least charitable listener might
understand my words, but while it's a useful communication skill, it's also a
curse: it puts a barrier of distrust between me and the people I'm speaking
with, and often results in overly-formal sounding communication. And, of
course, the least charitable listener will interpret formality as
pretentiousness.

~~~
mbostleman
Exactly. Many times I'll ask people from another domain, "Why can't you
just...", so that they can explain why that seemingly simple idea won't work.
And I know full well that it won't, I'm just not sure why.

But another problem with the idea of banning speech is that "just" recognizes
that there are levels of complexity, effort, and risk. No, there is never a
solution so simple that it is zero effort and risk. But there are certainly
some solutions that have more or less effort and risk than others. And if
you're asking if you could just do something else, you're implying that the
something else is less effort or risk - not zero effort or risk.

I have worked with people that have a similar approach as never say "just" in
that they insist that every problem is hard and should never be trivialized.
That's a reasonably wise stance to take as a default in software development,
but kills the recognition that some approaches are, in fact, easier than
others.

------
33a
If someone asks "Can you just..." and you can't do it for some reason, then
can you just explain it to them why you can't do it? Getting mad about doesn't
solve anything and passes up a great opportunity to fill in their missing
information.

~~~
dmreedy
Possibly. On the other hand, my experience with 'just' is symptomatic not of a
knowledge gap, but an _understanding_ gap. A knowledge gap might exist between
two peers with similar levels of domain knowledge but slightly differing
portfolios, and can thus be resolved quickly via reference to mutually
understood reference points. Two astrophysicists might have a knowledge gap
between each other.

An understanding gap is more like a model gap; the people between which the
gaps exist usually have entirely different domains with different useful
models. An understanding gap might exist between a salesperson and a
developer, or a chemist and a biologist; there might be shared reference
points to serve as foundations for bridging the gap, but they're much further
up the ontological hierarchy, as it were, and may require entire
reconstruction from first principles in the worst cases. This leads to
interesting conversation and personal development, for sure, but it's also not
a way to quickly resolve what may be a pressing issue. Closing an
understanding gap might take a four-year degree, or at the very least, weeks
or months of reading and learning.

I agree that getting mad about it is not the way to go; but this latter case
is where 'just' is most dangerous; to get a bit Rumsfeldian, the unknown
unknowns on the part of the 'juster' often run very deep, and would require
extensive education to mend.

~~~
forrestthewoods
This is my favorite comment to my post. On HN or else where. Thank you for
sharing.

------
sophacles
I tell my junior devs this heuristic: "whenever someone says the word 'just',
that is going to be the hardest part of the project".

Is it always the case? No

Is it frequently the case? Yes

The reason I found is that the person doing the explaining is:

* hand waving over some complicated detail (e.g "just get the info from the accounting software", but there's no API for that software)

* thinking fuzzy (e.g. conflicting requirements "just update the struct" when doing so adds a race condition or is updating an immutable object)

* forgetting that computers and humans have different notions of "easy". (e.g "You just have to pick the person's faces out of the image") (I should probably update my example here)

It's almost always worth further exploration into what the other person means
by "just do..." as an up-front exercise.

~~~
BenoitP
I'd expand the jar to include "Simple" alongside "Just".

I have learned over the years that Simple means: no one has spent time
thinking about it.

Simple means you are going to have to implement it alone, and take business
decisions that aren't yours to take (and have to maintain the associated
unstable code). On top of that people are going to question your abilities for
taking so long.

------
hvass
I understand where you are coming from but usually a naive and simple 'just',
especially coming from an outsider can be exactly what you need. Maybe you are
so entangled in the problem that you've lost the proverbial forest.

~~~
pjc50
Can you cite an example from your own experience where someone saying 'can you
just' worked for you?

~~~
jnevill
Has that never happened to you? You are stuck on a problem for what feels like
forever. It's complex and difficult to keep completely in your mind at once.
You've hit it from every facet that you can think off. Then you explain it to
someone that knows very little of the problem and they throw out a little
perspective, maybe preceded with a "Can you just..." and it may not be the
solution, but your mind sort of jump starts down a different path than it had
before.

I see this "Can you just..." business similar to the advice that you just stop
working on the problem that you can't solve and think about something else for
a while. Take a nap, go for a walk, have a drink. Wait until tomorrow. Often
times the problem isn't that the problem is difficult to solve or that it's
complex (it is), but rather that you are too mired in it to come up with the
solution. "Can you just... " suggestions often pull me out of the trees so I
can see the forest.

------
tener
From the list of the rules they have it feels like they don't have a problem
with 'just' questions, they have a problem with people and organization
culture. Seriously, banning any mentions of Rust (see "bonus points" section)?

If you have people being a jerks too often then you are missing healthy
environment.

Personally, when I'm asking a series of "just" questions I'm expecting one of
the following scenarios to happen:

1\. Less likely - the problem gets solved with a stroke of insight / fresh
idea

2\. More likely - I get better understanding of the problems involved, why it
is more complex than it seems at first, and ultimately "level up" my
expertise, which benefits the company.

------
devishard
Sure, maybe if you're looking for reasons to take offense, "just" is one you
could take offense to. But ultimately I think if we all are walking around on
eggshells to the point we can't say that word, that's a much worse environment
than one in which people say "just".

Besides, just because you take away the word doesn't mean they can't say it.
Removing the word just makes it harder to recognize when people do it.

------
meritt
I disagree. Oftentimes people who are actively working on a problem cannot see
the forest for the trees and an outsider's perspective will lead to a
substantially simpler solution.

------
jameshart
Then how do you ever stop someone over-engineering, or building things you
aren't gonna need? "Can you just..." is exactly the right question to ask to
pull someone back from that trap.

Can you just solve the problem you know about and worry about the edge cases
you suspect you'll run into later? How do you know that solving for that
problem is important? Don't try to build a complete system in one go, build
something that just solves part of the problem.

~~~
jachee
Isn't this what the "Yes" section of the article covers?

~~~
jameshart
Not really. My point is that 'just' is a critical part of incremental
development. Having a swear-jar for any time anybody uses the word means
you're basically banning asking sensible questions.

~~~
oldmanjay
No question in the world requires "can you just" in front to be asked in a
semantically equivalent manner. I'm not sure why you consider it critical but
I'd love to be edified.

------
_fs
I firmly believe in Linus's Law, stating that "given enough eyes, all bugs are
shallow". Because of this, I welcome any "can you just" when I feel that I am
stuck debugging a bug that cannot be found. Often times it is outside
intervention that pokes and prods my mind down a different path. The outside
input may not even be correct, but its enough to nudge me into a new,
unexplored view on the problem.

Try not to take outside input so personally. Give your ego a little break.
(Hopefully) your coworkers are all here to solve the same big problems.

------
SonicSoul
On one hand I understand your argument, it can get annoying to hear stupid
suggestions. But on the other hand a naive question just might be the answer
you needed.

Sometimes a solution gets disqualified for a wrong reason, or w/out looking at
all ways it could work.

This happened to me enough times that now I try to put my ego aside and
patiently go through my thinking again and again and each time the explanation
(and problem) becomes more clear.

Edit: shortened.

~~~
hashkb
It's about the attitude, not literally the word.

~~~
mathattack
It's also about putting the burden of understanding on the presenter rather
than the suggester.

------
lisper
I usually go with, "Is there are reason your don't do X?" That leave the
person with two perfectly reasonable and face-saving responses. The first is,
"Yes, it's because..." and the second is, "No, I guess there isn't. Thanks for
the suggestion!" Either way you win. In the first case, I learn something, and
in the second case my interlocutor does.

------
neo2006
In my experience the "ca you just..." solved a lot of problems cause very
often developer (me included) start thinking about edge cases and uncommon
scenarios before even solving the main path and sometimes a "can you just..."
put the focus back on solving the common problem/path before thinking of that
edge case that could be solved in a second iteration (divide and conquer). The
other good aspect of the "can you just..." is that it force you to explain
your motivation and the details that made you out rule the simple solution and
that could help solving the problem. then, if your ego do not support a "can
you just", it's your problem not the other guy as it's never meant to say I'm
better then you but to engage the discussion and help solving an issue!!

------
bdg
No. I'm exhausted by the growing arrogance of modern people insisting the
correct order of words are something to feel offended by.

I know people can _feel_ offended by many words, but unless you stop to try
and understand the intention of those words you don't deserve to say you are
offended.

This is the crux of all the passive aggression of the last two decades that
has finally blown into this out of control ideological debate about being
politically correct.

Are you offended? Did you at least make an attempt to understand my motives
and intentions?

This isn't to say if words from the offender are in their mind "kind" that it
isn't offensive. This is about the listener being a participant in human
exchange of communication.

------
leahculver
"Making a pop culture reference no one understands" is a punishable rule?
Wait... the author works at a game company? How does one build games without
understanding pop culture and what people enjoy about it?

------
FussyZeus
This word used in regard to completing tasks relating to software is bad
enough, this word as it's used much more commonly in the field of public
policy and politics in general is where it becomes truly sinister.

In general, and you can call this condescending but I'm willing to go there
and say that the word "just" and all it's related questions comments and
statements are the best way to show you genuinely, for better or worse, have
no idea what you're talking about and I can't think of any scenario improved
by a layman's understanding of it.

------
more_corn
I've banned this word in personal mechanical and my professional technical
work.

If you use it while speaking to me about my work or in my garage, I will stop
you and ask you to rephrase your sentence. I know this sounds like a dick
move, but it doesn't change the information conveyed just the connotations.
Most people will laugh and leave it out. The other people are perfectly free
to go talk to someone else ;- )

------
mathattack
This is very much about putting the burden of understanding on the presenter
rather than the suggester. I am big on sharing idea, but up to a point. After
a while I started referring to providers of half-baked ideas as "idea
fairies." Perhaps they're well intentioned, but they rarely help.

------
xxvxx
New Title: "Tone Policing: How to share your ideas with Egomaniacs". FTFY.

------
buckbova
I get this from PMs and managers more than other devs. As the labeled
architect I'm trying to keep the system somewhat "clean" and "can't you just"
suggestions drive me up the wall!

------
100k
Good read. I have been trying to eliminate "just" from my vocabulary because I
feel it denigrates the effort a task will take. It's much easier when writing.
When speaking I still slip up.

------
bitwize
LPT for managers: If you take the "just" and turn it into a one (or 0.5) point
story, then you not only get to avoid the just jar fee, you can also blame the
developer when it's late!

~~~
mrgoldenbrown
I hope you're joking, because in any sane methodology, the developer assigns
the story points, not the manager.

------
kittyfoofoo
It is awful that this article invokes the George Carlin routine, which argues
that "There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions. And words."

------
jbigelow76
With regards to the Just Jar, if you pay up but it turns out the answer
actually is yes, do you get your dollar back?

Tone policing, now with real life ticket fees!

------
Bartweiss
The obvious question: what do they do with the Jar? And do you get a cut of
the contents for saying "can you just" and being right?

------
mfringel
Similarly, "I have a quick question for you."

It's quick for the person to _say_. It says nothing about whether it's quick
to answer.

~~~
Gracana
Give a short answer and let them figure it out. Either they really don't need
the details (maybe they can find them on their own, maybe they just need
confirmation, maybe the details really aren't relevant, etc), or they suck at
asking questions, in which case they'll learn to ask better ones.

------
davidgerard
I find it helps to remember that usually, "just" correctly translates as "with
tremendous difficulty and faff".

------
lopatin
I've been on the other side of this too. A few days into a design decision
going "why didn't I just ...".

------
hashkb
Also: "little". I have a quick little thing I'd like you to look at by EOD.

------
amelius
"Can you just ..." is a persuasion to hacking. Don't give in.

