
Zero Tolerance for Slow Pace – Specific Steps for Rapid Development - tonystubblebine
https://betterhumans.coach.me/zero-tolerance-for-slow-pace-specific-steps-for-aggressively-fast-software-development-8f81f5c6ba00
======
meesterdude
The author lays out an overly idealistic approach to software development that
has blinders to all other metrics but the speed of feature development.

> For ten years, I’ve been trying to make the case for a higher pace of
> software development.

I suppose an obsession would be a good explanation for the blinders.

> In Rails, that mostly means testing at the controller level only

FWIW, controller testing in rails is frowned upon and has been abstracted to a
separate library. The recommend way is to combine unit tests with fullstack
feature specs.

> Now, several years later, I count 183 interactors. That’s a pretty clear
> indication that refactoring over time worked for us.

News to me that the number of interactors reflects the success of refactoring
in a codebase.

> Now that we’ve gone remote, those notifications are basically the only way
> to show people that you’re at your desk.

Great leadership there. You could also make them keep their webcams on so you
can literally watch them.

It's not all bad... but it's also nothing new.

Overall, i'll agree dev speed matters, but "zero tolerance for slow-pace" is a
toxic motto to try and cement because tradeoffs are all about...tradeoffs. And
there are a number of ideas the author raises that are... disagreeable, and
particularly of concern coming from a leadership position.

~~~
tonystubblebine
Author here. I think you're picking a fight just to pick a fight.

For example:

> News to me that the number of interactors reflects the success of
> refactoring in a codebase.

In the context of the article, that was given as a proof of refactor as you
go. The team chose a direction that they wanted to refactor towards. The 183
interactors are proof that they made significant progress in that direction
without having to do any sort of full stops.

~~~
meesterdude
I'm disagreeing with the article you wrote and the way you wrote it. It read
of fluff and arrogance, and I tried to respond to the points I found most
objectionable; I'll be honest there were more. But nobody wants to read all
that.

If my feedback was not constructive enough for you to improve your writing off
of, I apologize. While I found what you wrote to be disagreeable, idealistic
and in some cases downright toxic, it's only my perspective of the writing.

~~~
tonystubblebine
I'm saying that I think you misread it. The example I gave flat out doesn't
support your conclusion.

~~~
meesterdude
Why must my opinions be disregarded as picking a fight, or as a misread? You
appear more intent to dismiss than understand. I've given my honest reaction
to the article - that's the best I can do.

