> Do you use the best tools money can buy?
if you only use the best tools __money__ can buy, your development team is probably really bad.
Many good tools are paid. And developers need the good tools to be productive.
That is simply NOT true.
I think it's a little unfair on Joel Spolsky's team to suggest they might not be good at what they do based on a semantic argument around whether 'the best money can buy' can be interpreted as using resources or just cold hard cash. Considering the things they've built they're very evidently a highly accomplished group of developers. I don't see any need to argue about this; they're obviously using what they believe are the best tools for the job. You can tell that from looking at their results. Whether they're using free, open source things or they're buying tools isn't relevant, and certainly isn't a sign that "your development team is probably really bad". They're clearly not bad. They built Trello and StackOverflow.
If the test was updated for the web and native in a single set of data points, some companies would incorrectly score low because they focus on one or the other. I think it could use some kind of polish after 16 years but only to remove very narrow interpretations that derail discussions like this.
You really can't get how important that list is before working for a 0/12 company. Really.
and some stuff on the list also only applies to bigger companies.
I am not saying everything should be there but yes. There is totally a point to the test. Being really low means you are in a shitty place. Being high means nothing.
The biggest factor I didn't consider: People who exist in a 0/12 system are at best willing to tolerate it and at worst have engineered it. Change within that population will be challenging, even if they all publicly claim things need to change. You end up dancing on a razor's edge of being a positive change agent and being made a pariah. All while trying to do actual work.
Send help.