Laeserin @Laeserin - 2mo
Many of the client #devs would be better analysts/designers/testers/sysadmins than "devs", but clout on here only goes to devs, so we're ending up with a gazillion half-finished, buggy projects nobody uses, and that get quickly abandoned, and the better stuff doesn't get enough traffic because everyone who could provide actionable feedback is off tinkering. There's almost nobody to do the technical stuff that isn't as glamorous but is the difference between being permanently stuck in scriptkiddie hell or having production-ready systems. More appreciation for non-dev roles, please. For starters, stop asking people "... and what did you build?", like nobody has a right to speak on development topics unless they've hacked together some bullshit microblogger nobody will ever use. That isn't even proof that they could pass CompSci 101, ffs. /rant
This is a status question, primarily. Humans are naturally reluctant to do work that is unappreciated because their time and energy is limited. They have to choose and prioritize their efforts. Even if I think something is important, if I don't eventually see other people joining me in that important work, I start to think, "Am I wrong? Is this actually unimportant work and I just missed some memo?"
Feels good, don't it? 😅
I think some devs actually do appreciate it. At least, they manage to give me that impression. But the wider community is a bit antogonistic, IME. It's often seen as being disrespectful or meddling, or being a groupie or something. It's all very "Those who can, code. Those who can't, test." Especially galling, when someone spouts that crap whose own code is full of bugs and looks like it was written by a bad AI. Because it probably was. LOL
Yeah, occupying a different role brings a different viewpoint. I see it when I do code something and someone else tries it out and immediately points out stuff that I didn't notice, but that is obvious when they say it. Or I'll work on a build script and someone who does nothing but that all day will be like, "Have you tried..." Nope. Had no idea that was even a thing. 😅
We have the opposite problem of corporations, where there is one person coding and 100 people helping him. We have 100 people coding and 1 person helping them all. Like this meme, but the tester, sys-admin, back-end dev, designer, or marketer is in the pit. 😅 https://i.nostr.build/EjtFGwhik34HkMof.png
We need to expand the concept of "builders". Is the only builder the person who owns the repo, or does it include, in a wider sense, the people helping that person work more efficiently and effectively? Can we define project teams? Or are we destined to stay every-dev-for-himself? I mean, as nice as it is to be a dev, being the Product Owner and Senior Dev of a project team is probably even nicer. Just saying. Think about where you want your project to be next year or in 5 years. Will you get there alone?
I've noticed that they think I can't read their code. LOL
Yeah, have to just give up and move on. 🤷♀️ Just makes me more eager to build something to replace their stuff, really, or to promote alternatives.
There was one who was really terrible about this. I told him that he has a bad attitude and wouldn't last long, and he responded by threatening me, but he's gone.
Yeah, but I can't build a replacement for EVERYTHING. At some point, we all are stuck using other people's stuff.
Anyone competent knows that there MUST be something wrong with their code. They're just waiting to see, if anyone finds it.
I guess that's the difference. Public status, from users and funders and journalists, comes from being Ze Dev. Support roles tend to only have "project-internal status". I.e. only the people working on the project care about their effort. So devs who give people in support roles the feeling that they care about their work, and that they're part of a team, will get more work out of them. Everyone else will get less. I've been slowly distilling my focus down to helping a few particular devs, because they seem to value it, most. I think those are the devs with the longest-term potential because they know how to motivate staff. They're the people I can picture running a company.
I was like Wut? 👀
I think building teams, is the answer. People think that's just something for larger projects, but projects tend to get large because they have a team. One person doesn't scale that well. I'm not sure how to help other devs find their team. It took me months of scouring the feeds, all day, to find those people, and I needed to find 20 in order to end up with a handful of solid ones. If you have lots of money on offer, you probably get more candidates, but most drift off, again, or are half-hearted. There are easier ways to make money.
Yeah, that's why it's good to work in a team. And then you can take a longer break, without your project looking dead. You have to plan for a vacation, or someone becoming ill or moving house, or people being at a conference, etc. Someone needs to at least run help-desk.
jimbocoin 🃏 @jimbocoin - 2mo
https://image.nostr.build/32813b146b26196ac04c64c0f196e9d5cfc15524d0b1df1e84b9e7cc763923af.jpg
What do you think it's about?
🤣
