If it's something OSS I'm good with a github with the code up, maybe a couple of examples that are well commented and easy to get up and running within the framework, and a reasonable README to guide me through the process.
I'm already experienced with writing software, so if I have something to play with and read through in a text editor I can learn what's going on faster than reading about how to set hello world up for a new framework.
What about if it isn't OSS? Do you like more reference style docs (i.e. this method takes arguments x, y, z, returns a string) or narrative (i.e. to accomplish goal x, you'll need to do y and z like this ...)?
Honestly, I'd rather have a well commented example application that utilizes the framework with decent API documentation. So a little bit of both. The APIs are hopefully written well enough that things are fairly self documenting.
Maybe a couple of different example applications to serve different goals would be helpful as well instead of one monolithic project.
I've just never really been big on blog posts that are showing me code and why things are there, when that can all be done within the project itself and I can run it, maybe setup breakpoints and hack around. I can get up and running faster that way, and I hate high barriers to entry when I'm looking to play around with something.
Seems like the capitalist machine is doing what it's doing. Someone is going in and generating profit which is pretty much how it's supposed to be.
Now whether someone who has that specific goal in mind is better at generating profit than someone who's not soulless is a separate question. But at the end of the day it's hard to blame an individual when it's a systematic problem.
Except that throughout the years, the manufacture of cars has become commoditized, and there are many more engine manufacturers than there were, so it's virtually impossible for a single manufacturer to corner the market on engines. Additionally, since the parts can all be fabricated by a multitude of vendors, there's no risk to the car company of a single point of failure.
The 2 .NET shops I was in had a pretty bad way of commoditizing the developers working there (and thus started believing offshoring was the way in this, the year of our lord, 2011).
This also led to them working in bringing the code to the lowest common denominator level and was a frustrating nightmare. I was a lone wolf and when I mentioned that I had implemented a couple systems using MVC and jQuery on the front end it blew some of the developer's minds. It's a shame because the framework is capable of a lot, it's just the enterprise shops are terrible of taking advantage of it.
Needless to say, I'm not a .NET developer anymore.
I'm confused by how the percentage doesn't sound as nice. It's about risk vs. reward, raw monetary return doesn't really give you that. Raw profit completely ignores the risk the investor put in initially. I'd rather have the 100x return since I risked a lot less to get get it.
I think there are more risks on the 1M dollar level. If a company raises north of 25M (in our industry) this is likely to be a C round at which point they are likely to have proven a market and a solid income.
The problem is that when you're hiding salaries you can't really evaluate the market. Really by hiding that information you're giving the salary giver most of the power and those shopping around for a higher salary need to do a lot more work to evaluate how much they're worth on the market.
I mean if Joe is doing half the work I'm doing, shouldn't he get paid significantly less? You're kind of attacking this from an "ignorance is bliss" standpoint, but that seems to support the market acting kind of erratically.
Does the market really matter if I'm happy with what I'm being paid?
Sure it does. A portion of your happiness at work is down to the quality of people you work with, no? If your company routinely lowballs, then when the dust settles you are going to find yourself surrounded by people who had no choice but to accept that rate. The market therefore affects you whether you care about it or not.
Also, things change. Plenty of money to live on as a bachelor might leave you a bit short if you want to start a family. If you don't "need" the money right now, stick it in a savings account. Because remember this: someone is getting the value you create. Why shouldn't it be you?
I guess this is just a "to each his own" sort of thing. Personally I'm only truly happy when I have all the information (or as much as I can get in practical terms, anyway) and I'm still satisfied with the situation. I suppose others are fine without.
Note that this isn't a competition thing. I wouldn't necessarily be dissatisfied just by the concept of an equal peer making more than me; I'd be disappointed that I could be making more but I'm not.
I'm personally happy if I don't feel like I'm getting screwed for my time/output. I can't really judge that very well other than gut feeling if I don't know how much other individuals around me are making.
In order to find out if I'm getting boned I've had to go out and interview with other companies to pull offers to gauge the market, this is probably a net negative for all sides.
To me, this raises the question, "How do I determine whether to be happy with what I'm getting paid?" This is where having open salaries would be beneficial - I could compare my salaries against others with the same skills and experience and determine whether I was being treated fairly or not.
This is my thoughts exactly. I'm happy with my salary because it enables me to live comfortably and purchase the things that I want. What other people make doesn't directly factor into it at all (not withstanding the fact that prices usually follow the average income, which affects my purchasing power).
Comparing incomes and constantly thinking about what you _could_ be making just leads up to never being satisfied with any kind of salary in the long run.
>Comparing incomes and constantly thinking about what you _could_ be making just leads up to never being satisfied with any kind of salary in the long run.
I couldn't disagree more. The first career company I worked for, I got transfered up from a less-than-level-one position into a high end dev position through my own sweat . Due to company policies about how much a maximum raise could be I found myself making less than 1/5th of what that position would normally get. For the first year or two I wasn't bothered because I didn't have too much experience. 5 years later when every piece of software we had deployed was my architecture, using my libraries, etc., etc. I started to be bothered seeing other people have all these possessions while being so frugal and getting no where. Even though I had no idea what other people were making, it was totally obvious I was getting screwed but I didn't know how badly. I didn't know what my market rate was.
Now as a contractor I know very closely what my market rate is because I get to test it at least twice a year (as opposed to once every 2-5 years before). I know what other contractors are making, I'm the lowest of my circle of friends or close to it. That doesn't bother me because we all do different things and they've all been contracting longer.
I know exactly where I stand and I see an obvious growth path and target. I have real (or at least the chance of it) feedback into where I stand instead of made up nonsense in some yearly meeting where your raise was set by someone you don't even know weeks ago and the things you have to "improve" on your yearly review are structured to justify it. Did my new contract rate go up, down or stay the same? Based on contacts and job ads, did I follow the market or diverge? If market rates went up and my rate didn't that's a real call to action. "Demonstrates acceptance of company vision - needs work" is not.
 Not trying to toot my own horn, others did as well. It was probably an artifact of how awful it was where we were.