back
3 comments
Strange naming.

> Even though both groups’ incentives are ultimately the same, the short-term incentives they face diverge. Waiters stereotypically want more behavior changes faster, focused on either latency or throughput. Changers stereotypically want the structure clean and tidy (not all changers are the same — part 3 addresses the changer-changer relationship).

Is this a roundabout way of describing stakeholders and developers?

Structure changes vs behavior changes also seems like a circuitous way of describing refactoring versus feature work.

I don't think I got the essay. Would someone who liked it mind sharing what insights you got out of it?

My summary would basically be "Make sure features are added to keep stakeholders happy. But also try to interweave some refactoring to keep yourself happy".

> Is this a roundabout way of describing stakeholders and developers?

Maybe, but not the way I skim read it.

The chord it strikes for me is nearer Agile vs Waterfall, between those who would rather quickly get a thin slice put together and those who (at the extreme opposite) would endlessly design, document and polish before producing it.

On a current project I'm the developer who wants to build the features out quickly and the stakeholder is a government client who wants to go very slowly with all the design and documentation upfront.

The part at the top about having wealth leading to "better" and "kinder" societies was also interesting. It re-enforced a believe I already had that affluence allows people and peoples to afford to expend more on life not sucking and giving more and better opportunities. Please note: allows, as in it enables this as an option... not makes/enforces as in greed still exists in the world.