Reply to Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "Google male engineeer saying female engineers shouldn't be engineers"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The problem with Google, and the problem with other modern software houses, is that they have decided to put their laser-like attention on things other than quality of product. They focus on diversity, social good, various arcane theories of user-interface design, and other things that have nothing to do with writing effective code. Unsurprisingly, they aren’t very good at doing any of those new tasks — and because they’ve abandoned the things that they used to do well, the foundations are slipping out from underneath them.

Today’s Google home page is a slow-loading mess compared to what it used to be, loaded with buggy features and featuring plenty of bugs. Browser-dependent, hugely bloated, more like the old Excite! homepage than anything a Google user would have enjoyed a decade ago. It’s simply not very good anymore. That should worry the people at Google. Fixing that should be a priority above “social good” or “diverse teams”. They should hire the smartest people and have them write the best code. Period. That’s what Google is supposed to do. Whenever Google does that, it succeeds. Whenever they try to change the world, it’s a ridiculous failure.[/quote]

thats because much of Google code is built by H1Bs, replaceable guest workers, imported for low wages and willingness to work late and weekends.

Maybe woman are smarter than men and see what the life of a coder has become and decided that is not worth the cost, there is no benefit in working in a field that imports millions of foreign guest workers to compete and take your job as you get older.[/quote]

Engineering as a profession, especially in the area of computer software, has been hugely devalued in the last couple of decades. Businesses needed not good software, but software anyone could write. After all, when all you’re chasing is your next quarterly earnings report, how can you possibly afford to develop anything that requires more than six months? Furthermore, how can you afford a large staff of well-trained, and well-educated engineers? Former giants like IBM and HP kept cutting their staff until they became unable to develop anything of any value anymore. For your added quarterly earnings benefit, universities will now churn out graduates with two-year “developer” degrees. Not to worry, they know Java, and Agile, and Scrum (and little else). So when the sales team says “JUMP!”, they will obediently ask “How high?”

Thus we have a problem when the people running things have no idea how the sausage is made. To them, “software” is just a bunch of people hammering out code. They don’t realize that good software needs an architect/engineer with a clear idea what the software is supposed to do. Ideally, the software engineer knows what the software needs to do, and personally needs to use it. the software engineer(s) need to be laying out all reasonable use cases and writing the specifications.

On the other hand, you can off-shore it to Bangalore and hope for the best. I’ve been dealing with that for a few years now; yes, people can be taught how to write C code and they can read the programmer’s guide to whatever uCom you’re using, but unless your spec is airtight you’re going to get back spaghetti code which is going to be a nightmare to debug.  In these cases, if your spec is lousy, your software is going to going to be garbage.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics