Hacker News Reader

I don't see how using vim is in any way bad for business, what a terrible example. And I don't even use it myself.

Your argument also hinges on "business" knowing what is good for productivity, which they generally don't. Admittedly, neither do many programmers, else we'd have a lot less k8s.

Indeed, I detest vim but I think mentioning it detracted from the argument by showing why developers tend to not trust it when others try to dictate what is "good for the business" based on their own views rather than objective metrics.

> Not everyone has the same priorities, so you'd have to mandate compliance to see the benefits.

I think it could have been left to individual small teams or smaller units. After some time it would have been obvious that teams who went to the office delivered better results. If the benefits are really that obvious as they are usually touted, it shouldn't take long (a year or two).

> It's 2025 and people will have adamantly used vim for 25 years

But if they are productive and delivers results they can still use vim. I can see controlling the APIs used, the programming languages allowed etc. But if they are productive with vim, let them use vim.

> I think the assumption that people will choose to boost their own productivity is questionable, especially in the face of their own comfort or enjoyment,

That's fair. I guess it depends on the types of people. I had in mind motivated people who would be glad to be more productive and deliver results quicker. Yeah, if people are not like that and are trying to do the least amount of work and just coast then it's a bigger issue. Office or not office, AI or no AI probably won't shift the needle by much.

You've got a point on RTO. Because it's a group behaviour, if you believe it will have positive effects, mandating it could be a way of jumpstarting the group dynamic.

With LLMs, I'm not so sure. Seems more like an individual activity to me. Are some people resistant to new tools, sure. But a good tool does tend to diffuse naturally. I think LLMs are diffusing naturally too, but maybe not as fast as the AI-boosters would like.

The mistake these managers are making is assuming it's a good tool for work that they're not qualified to assess.

> You've got a point on RTO. Because it's a group behaviour, if you believe it will have positive effects, mandating it could be a way of jumpstarting the group dynamic.

Fair point! It was just the first recent example of "it's obviously better but we'll force you to do it" I could think of.

In case of RTO I think it should have been left to individual small team. If one is so clearly it would have been clear in a few years time which teams work better and which didn't and how it depended on them being in the same office.