News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why do you not make the code available under a 'source co... by jordigh on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @11:57AM (#9732736)
> Your bogus rationalizations sound like you haven't held a software job working with other developers in twenty-five years, if ever.

Video codec people are kind of weird as developers. Consider ffmpeg and libav. They're certainly competent, just weird.

Re:Why do you not make the code available under a 'source co... by kazinator on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @01:37PM (#9733753)
Interesting point, and I happen to have worked with the internals of ffmpeg on the job, so I understand. (I gave it a plugin architecture, supporting dynamically loaded AVParser and AVCodec objects, supporting hardware acceleration.)
Re:Why do you not make the code available under a 'source co... by s73v3r on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @01:12PM (#9733510)
I dunno. Statements like in the link make me question if someone is actually competent.
Re:Why do you not make the code available under a 'source co... by kbar13 on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @01:42PM (#9733789)
someone's grasp of best practices in vcs is in no way an indicator of their programming or cs abilities
Re:Why do you not make the code available under a 'source co... by czardoz on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @02:12PM (#9734029)
But it could still be an indicator of competence.
Re:Why do you not make the code available under a 'source co... by dvanduzer on Wednesday June 17, 2015 @02:24PM (#9734158)
To reason about software, it's a useful cognitive tool to be able to simplify gigantic systems down to interfaces and black boxes.

Carrying that notion of isolating components too far, such that you don't consider human cooperation as part of the system? It happens often, but we also often distinguish this with statements about EQ versus IQ rather than summing it all up as competence.

(Yes, you used the word indicator. I'm speaking to the community more than you specifically.)