# joel-spolsky Published articles for joel-spolsky. This is one page of public article previews, not the complete archive. Follow Next page to continue. Summaries are not the original full articles. ## Blog posts that influenced Simon Willison's thinking about software engineering DevFeed: [Blog posts that influenced Simon Willison's thinking about software engineering]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Simon Willison Published: 2026-09-14T20:21:48Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Simon Willison's Weblog]() Topics: [Software Engineering](), [Tech Debt](), [Database]() Tags: [charity-majors](), [charity-majors-10](), [individual-contributor](), [joel-spolsky](), [joel-spolsky-10](), [management](), [software-engineering](), [software-engineering-64](), [tech-debt](), [will-larson](), [will-larson-17]() ### AI overview Simon Willison describes three blog posts that influenced his thinking: Joel Spolsky's "The Law of Leaky Abstractions," Will Larson's "Migrations: the sole scalable fix to tech debt," and Charity Majors' "The Engineer/Manager Pendulum." He says they shaped his approach to understanding software layers, treating migrations as an important engineering skill, and moving between engineering management and individual-contributor work. ### Source excerpt My comment on What blog posts influenced your thinking the most? -- Lobste.rs. An early Joel Spolsky one for me was The Law of Leaky Abstractions. I read that near the start of my career and it's encouraged me to always be looking for improved understanding of the layers under where I'm working, just in case one of those abstractions leaks. A more recent one, from 2018, is Migrations: the sole scalable fix to tech debt by Will Larson. I absolutely love his idea that migrations (e.g. replacing one service with a new one, or switching database engines, or whatever) are part and parcel of software engineering and are a skill that you should invest in and get good at, not avoid or treat as special one-offs. The Engineer/Manager Pendulum by Charity Majors was hugely influential for me. I was stuck in engineering management and worried that if I switched back to being an "Individual Contributor" (ugh I hate that term) I'd damage my career. Charity gave me permission to make the switch by pointing out that many of the most successful software developers pendulum from one track to the other multiple times over their career, and doing so makes you better at both sides. Tags: joel-spolsky, software-engineering, will-larson, charity-majors ## Valuing Employees DevFeed: [Valuing Employees]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Map Published: 2010-02-28T01:10:23Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Craig Kerstiens]() Topics: [Job](), [standard]() Tags: [business](), [employees](), [joel-spolsky]() ### AI overview The article argues that employee compensation should reflect the value people deliver and that retention depends on more than pay. Employees who are no longer challenged should seek new challenges within their role or move elsewhere. ### Source excerpt A coworker and I were recently having conversations over employee compensation. We covered the gambit around employee feedback, evals, and compensation. He mentioned Joel Spolsky, and his format of being very open about where individuals were ranked. He also pointed me to: http://alumnit.ca/~apenwarr/log/?m=200904#05 which provided good insight, though I most like his final point. The end goal with evaluating your employees and compensation for them is to make sure they're happy. Sure the business should make sure they feel like you're worth what you're being paid, but usually there is no question about this, or if there is you're quickly escorted out the door. While this is an interesting model, I think it can be much simpler, but companies usually confine themselves too much in giving credit to employees. There was another recent occasion where a statement was made of 'no more playing stick them up, until next year'. When I first thought about this, I knew I didn't like the statement, but was unsure of why. The reason is that there can be several reasons why employees leave. Only one of which is compensation. If you feel you're being adequately compensated for the job you're doing it makes sense. But there's another reason thats very clear in the valley but less clear in other parts of the country. Paul Buchheit at Startup School this weekend in Berkeley said it very well: If you've been at your job too long, QUIT. Meaning if you're comfortable, you know the people, you know how to do your job, and you're not being challenged, then you should go somewhere where you are challenged. So what does this have to do in regards to playing stick em up? Well if you're at a comfortable place you should be compensate appropriately that's fair. However if you're at a comfortable place, you should either find ways to be challenged there or move on. If you're challenged there it means your role over time will change, there's not a standard guide for how quickly you become experi