zlacker

>>todsac+(OP)
I tend to consider bullshit any point that finds somehow acceptable thinking that people is lazy, in this society, in this world, on this planet, ffs we have to work 40 hrs per week per decades and rest after reincarnation, and you want to talk about laziness? Let's talk about how any bit of mental energy is extracted to built other's wealth and then when you are too old to do nothing other than watching work in progress they just spit you out

when I am supposed to fix tech debt? if every week there is another functionality going out that needs to be done yesterday? Do you think that I have to do it in my free time? Why should I even bother existing

>>lnxg33+h1
Being not-lazy in your work is not the same as working lots of hours.

>>qup+Y2
> Being not-lazy in your work is not the same as working lots of hours.

You've just provides your personal assertion on a non-definition. Do you actually have an alternative definition that does not imply working lots of hours?

>>rewmie+o4
From the article

> I routinely come across developers who are the real deal: they’re conscientious and judicious in an unwavering way. They set a standard for themselves and do not compromise on it. Whether that’s a deliberate thing or whether they’re just built that way, it’s humbling to witness. If there’s a flaky test, they investigate it and fix it. If there’s a bug they spot in the wild, they make a ticket, and maybe even fix it then-and-there. If a new feature doesn’t gel well with the existing code, they refactor the code first rather than hacking the feature in. They’ll dive as far down the stack as necessary to get to the bottom of something. None of these things are necessary but great developers know that if they don’t address a problem early, and properly, it will only cost them more time in the long run. [... and more.]

This sounds like a great definition of not-lazy, and it does not mention long hours anywhere. My anecdotal experience is that I usually only have 20-35 not-lazy hours to give per week; any further hours per week are much less potent. Right now I'm working 24 hours per week and I think my employer is getting a great bargain: they don't have to pay me for hours that would likely be lazy.

>>defaul+r6
Yeah, but that diligence takes time, and now you have to work on extra hours to keep up performance metrics with the rest of the team.

>>lelant+w9
If I worked at a place where I was penalized for "only" putting in 40 hours of solid work per week, I'd be energetically looking for a job elsewhere.

>>JohnFe+qi
> If I worked at a place where I was penalized for "only" putting in 40 hours of solid work per week, I'd be energetically looking for a job elsewhere.

I think you didn't understood the problem. No one is talking about penalizing people for only doing 40hours. The problem is that code quality is never prioritized or allocated time, so you either live with it or you go above and beyond and you deal it yourself on your own time. If your team is bounded to KPIs which you don't build up by refactoring bad code or diving deep into code issues or tracking weird elusive bugs, either you are forced to pull extra hours to no fall behind your team or your performance will clearly be awful.

>>rewmie+t81
> The problem is that code quality is never prioritized or allocated time, so you either live with it or you go above and beyond and you deal it yourself on your own time.

This is not an inevitability, though. It depends on the temperament of the company you work for. A slight majority of the companies I've worked for didn't mind allocating time for that sort of thing at all (but they did expect you to make a business case for it).