Good engineering principles, like prioritizing simplicity, focusing on the user, and embracing iteration, apply equally to individuals and organizations. An engineer's effectiveness hinges on clear communication, understanding context, and building trust, just as an organization's success depends on efficient processes, shared understanding, and psychological safety. Essentially, the qualities that make a good engineer—curiosity, pragmatism, and a bias towards action—should be reflected in the organizational culture and processes to foster a productive and fulfilling engineering environment. By prioritizing these principles, both engineers and organizations can create better products and more satisfying experiences.
"Vibe coding" refers to a style of programming where developers prioritize superficial aesthetics and the perceived "coolness" of their code over its functionality, maintainability, and readability. This approach, driven by the desire for social media validation and a perceived sense of effortless brilliance, leads to overly complex, obfuscated code that is difficult to understand, debug, and modify. Ultimately, vibe coding sacrifices long-term project health and collaboration for short-term personal gratification, creating technical debt and hindering the overall success of software projects. It prioritizes the appearance of cleverness over genuine problem-solving.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that "vibe coding" – prioritizing superficial aspects of code over functionality – is a real and detrimental phenomenon. Several point out that this behavior is driven by inexperienced engineers seeking validation, or by those aiming to impress non-technical stakeholders. Some discuss the pressure to adopt new technologies solely for their perceived coolness, even if they don't offer practical benefits. Others suggest that the rise of "vibe coding" is linked to the increasing abstraction in software development, making it easier to focus on surface-level improvements without understanding the underlying mechanisms. A compelling counterpoint argues that "vibe" can encompass legitimate qualities like code readability and maintainability, and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. Another commenter highlights the role of social media in amplifying this trend, where superficial aspects of coding are more readily showcased and rewarded.
The concept of the "10x engineer" – a mythical individual vastly more productive than their peers – is detrimental to building effective engineering teams. Instead of searching for these unicorns, successful teams prioritize "normal" engineers who possess strong communication skills, empathy, and a willingness to collaborate. These individuals are reliable, consistent contributors who lift up their colleagues and foster a positive, supportive environment where collective output thrives. This approach ultimately leads to greater overall productivity and a healthier, more sustainable team dynamic, outperforming the supposed benefits of a lone-wolf superstar.
Hacker News users generally agree with the article's premise that "10x engineers" are a myth and that focusing on them is detrimental to team success. Several commenters share anecdotes about so-called 10x engineers creating more problems than they solve, often by writing overly complex code, hoarding knowledge, and alienating colleagues. Others emphasize the importance of collaboration, clear communication, and a supportive team environment for overall productivity and project success. Some dissenters argue that while the "10x" label might be hyperbolic, there are indeed engineers who are significantly more productive than average, but their effectiveness is often dependent on a good team and proper management. The discussion also highlights the difficulty in accurately measuring individual developer productivity and the subjective nature of such assessments.
"Work at the Mill" tells the story of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) through the lens of its unique and influential culture. From its modest beginnings in a Maynard, Massachusetts wool mill, DEC fostered a highly engineering-driven, decentralized environment that prioritized innovation and individual contribution. This culture, while empowering and productive in its early years, ultimately contributed to DEC's downfall as the company struggled to adapt to the changing demands of the personal computer market. The "engineering first" mentality, coupled with internal politics and a resistance to centralized management, prevented DEC from effectively competing with more agile and market-oriented companies, leading to its eventual acquisition by Compaq. The narrative emphasizes how DEC's initial strengths became its weaknesses, offering a cautionary tale about the importance of adapting to a changing technological landscape.
Hacker News users discuss the changing nature of work and the decline of "lifetime employment" exemplified by DEC's history. Some commenters reminisce about their time at DEC, praising its engineering culture and lamenting its downfall, attributing it to factors like mismanagement, arrogance, and an inability to adapt to the changing market. Others draw parallels between DEC and contemporary tech companies, speculating about which of today's giants might be the "next DEC." Several discuss the broader shift away from paternalistic employment models and the rise of a more transactional relationship between employers and employees. Some express nostalgia for the perceived stability and community of the past, while others argue that the current system, despite its flaws, offers greater opportunity and dynamism. The cyclical nature of industries and the importance of continuous adaptation are recurring themes.
James Shore envisions the ideal product engineering organization as a collaborative, learning-focused environment prioritizing customer value. Small, cross-functional teams with full ownership over their products would operate with minimal process, empowered to make independent decisions. A culture of continuous learning and improvement, fueled by frequent experimentation and reflection, would drive innovation. Technical excellence wouldn't be a goal in itself, but a necessary means to rapidly and reliably deliver value. This organization would excel at adaptable planning, embracing change and prioritizing outcomes over rigid roadmaps. Ultimately, it would be a fulfilling and joyful place to work, attracting and retaining top talent.
HN commenters largely agree with James Shore's vision of a strong product engineering organization, emphasizing small, empowered teams, a focus on learning and improvement, and minimal process overhead. Several express skepticism about achieving this ideal in larger organizations due to ingrained hierarchies and the perceived need for control. Some suggest that Shore's model might be better suited for smaller companies or specific teams within larger ones. The most compelling comments highlight the tension between autonomy and standardization, particularly regarding tools and technologies, and the importance of trust and psychological safety for truly effective teamwork. A few commenters also point out the critical role of product vision and leadership in guiding these empowered teams, lest they become fragmented and inefficient.
Summary of Comments ( 98 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44026703
HN commenters largely agreed with Moxie's points about the importance of individual engineers having ownership and agency. Several highlighted the damaging effects of excessive process and rigid hierarchies, echoing Moxie's emphasis on autonomy. Some discussed the challenges of scaling these principles, particularly in larger organizations, with suggestions like breaking down large teams into smaller, more independent units. A few commenters debated the definition of "good engineering," questioning whether focusing solely on speed and impact could lead to neglecting important factors like maintainability and code quality. The importance of clear communication and shared understanding within a team was also a recurring theme. Finally, some commenters pointed out the cyclical nature of these trends, noting that the pendulum often swings between centralized control and decentralized autonomy in engineering organizations.
The Hacker News post discussing Moxie Marlinspike's blog post "A Good Engineer" has generated a substantial amount of discussion, with a diverse range of perspectives on the qualities that define both good engineers and effective engineering organizations.
Several commenters agree with Marlinspike's central premise, highlighting the importance of curiosity, the ability to quickly learn and adapt, and a proactive approach to problem-solving. One commenter elaborates on this, stating that good engineers possess an "innate drive to understand how things work," which translates into a continuous quest for improvement and optimization. Another emphasizes the significance of "systems thinking," arguing that understanding the broader context in which a problem exists is crucial for developing effective solutions. They go further, suggesting that fostering an environment where engineers can explore and experiment, even if it leads to occasional failures, is essential for long-term growth.
The discussion also touches upon the translation of individual qualities to the organizational level. Some commenters believe that organizations mirroring the characteristics of a good engineer—adaptability, a willingness to learn, and a focus on continuous improvement—tend to be more successful. One commenter specifically mentions the importance of "psychological safety," allowing engineers to voice their concerns and propose novel ideas without fear of reprisal. This sentiment is echoed by another who emphasizes the need for open communication and collaboration within the organization.
However, not all comments are in complete agreement with Marlinspike. Some argue that while the qualities he mentions are valuable, they don't encompass the full spectrum of what makes a good engineer. One commenter points out the importance of domain expertise and experience, especially in complex fields, suggesting that a focus solely on adaptability can sometimes overlook the value of specialized knowledge. Another commenter highlights the importance of communication and teamwork, asserting that even the most brilliant individual can be ineffective if they struggle to collaborate with others.
Several comments also delve into the practical aspects of building good engineering organizations. One commenter discusses the challenges of hiring and retaining talent, emphasizing the importance of creating a culture that attracts and nurtures individuals with the desired qualities. Another commenter highlights the role of leadership in fostering a positive and productive engineering environment, suggesting that effective leaders empower their teams and provide them with the resources they need to succeed.
Finally, a few commenters provide anecdotal evidence from their own experiences, sharing stories of both successful and unsuccessful engineering teams and the factors that contributed to their respective outcomes. These personal accounts add a layer of practical insight to the more theoretical aspects of the discussion. Overall, the Hacker News comments provide a rich and multifaceted perspective on the characteristics of good engineers and the organizational structures that support their success.