Re:
by davidw on Friday January 13, 2023 @03:21PM
(#34373349)
I read something about how a lot of 'super group' bands kind of don't do anything truly great because of this type of dynamic. They all know they're good, they know the others are good, and they all have a bit of an ego and don't want to stomp on the others, so they all tend to "go along with it" without getting too pushy. That leads to good, but not great music.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:
by rintakumpu on Friday January 13, 2023 @06:05PM
(#34375160)
Definitely. Though there are exceptions. Led Zeppelin comes to mind first.
I think part of the idea was that in an actual band that has been a band for a while, they usually find a way of working together that includes "difficult conversations" and saying no, and sometimes listening to one person's vision rather than tiptoeing around egos.
This is the long term way to greatness.
In companies and life.
Enterprise software is not art and shouldn't be approached the same way. You want a roller-coaster-like experience, go join a startup
No one said 'roller coaster'. Part of quality software is saying 'no' to stuff, or having a coherent vision, not 'software by committee'.
Only if you have a quality engineer at the wheel though. Otherwise you just end up with horrible software.
I guess that’s why large enterprises hate it, since they’re all about reducing risk.
If they get middling software every time then that’s preferable to the two extremes.
Enterprise software isn't middling, it's usually only barely functional and falls just short of what it should do (i.e. it's shit). Everyone is just so pathologically used to it they think it can't be better. Probably due to the allergy to risk that you mentioned. Ironically risk is eliminated, but in doing so you've just ensured you have consistent problems that can never get better.