It is replaced with “DONTWRITEJUST” and then I take advantage of the autocorrect not being great at understanding the context of backspaces and moving caret position to type it if I need it.
I am so glad I am not the only one who hated it when other people would try to imply the work I did was trivial. If you want to say my work is trivial or "just" 0.5 story points, you should be willing to pick up this story.
Whenever I hear someone in a meeting saying "X shouldn't take that long, all you have to is A, B, C", I like to say "It sounds like we have a volunteer".
The approach I take is to use "just" if and only if I mean to diminish something. I'll use it to refer to parts of my work that were easy, or to parts of unassigned work that should be easy, barring unexpected complications. I find it useful to have an easy way to signal which parts of a task need more effort.
I think this makes a lot of sense, and also highlights why its use in e.g. documentation can be inappropriate. Lacking context for your user, you might not correctly anticipate which parts are easy for them. But often it is used in places where it's not useful to communicate that you think something should be easy. If I need to add a DNS record, you can tell me only that, instead of implying "add a DNS record, which should be easy for you".
Fellow SWEs never do this to me, but my non-techie business partner uses this word and it drives me bonkers.
Side note, I think the reason half of silicon valley has imposter syndrome is because they don't stick around for more than 1.8 years. It took me over a year for it to go away. Just chill out folks. You're doing fine. Stick around. Let's build up some knowledge and just make things better, okay?
What's wrong with this? That seems like proper usage to me. What the author has an issue with seems to be snobby, snarky, or sarcastic usage of the word "just."
Sometimes, the best answer is in fact "just add a DNS record."
The author should just write that instead of this long blog-post that gives the impression of someone easily offended.
words mean things. What's really the benefit of adding in "just"?
Your claim is that people are too easily offended and so maybe these people will be (too) easily offend by the word. So what's really the benefit of using the word?
It adds clarity that you're proposing an alternate solution precisely because it's simpler/less work and not as a general alternative. It's a qualifier. think of it as shorthand for "Wouldn't it be easier if..."
Twice the words. But more importantly, if a DNS record is a bad idea, your version is likely to get a more detailed response. It can be valuable to get a compact answer like filtering rules or we don't have a local DNS server.
Just in a statement is insulting if the other person has no idea why the statement is true. Why don't you just, in a question, is insulting if the suggestion is a good one.
No, the problem is oblivious use of the word “just”. As in “just add a DNS record”, when said to an audience that has never setup a website. The idea here is that we (people who write instructions) are so bad at knowing our audience, and so bad at knowing if we’re one of the ones who are bad at knowing our audience, that it’s safer to just avoid using just entirely.
It's not about written instructions to an audience who has never set up a website though, it's about an "engineer" and a "senior engineer" on the same team talking to each other.
It might "just" be simple to you, but that could be with your years of knowledge. Write for your audience. If it's an informational blogpost? "just" might annoy people who do get confused because they think it should be easy. "Just" make the app.
Step 1. Draw a circle.
Step 2. Just finish the lion.
Why can't you draw from my instructions?
The same principle is why I try not to teach any game as "Simple", even when it is to me. Some people cannot follow rules to a game, no matter how simple, and then are frustrated when the "simple" game doesn't come to them. Why add that layer of negativity?
When I was writing one of my first books, I created a list of common editorial feedback of words and terms that I need to stop using. "Just" was in that list. Removing it usually resulted in a better product.
> If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just...” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
It is possible to get everyone to just, it’s just that it only works with smaller sets of everyone. Everyone everyone would certainly never going to just, but you could just pick a smaller everyone (like everyone in this room or something).
No one really means everyone when they say “if everyone could just”. There is always an implied scope. The problem is only when scope is too large. Reduce it and everyone could literally just.
I can get a few people to do a lot of things, and a lot of people to do a few things, but it's rarely 'just'. You have to acknowledge that it isn't free and it might not be easy, but convince them the rewards are worth the effort often and significantly enough that if once in a while they aren't, it still comes out in the wash.
> The argument for voting is very Kantian: “act so that if everyone acted so…” and “if no literally one voted then voting would matter again” but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy. And in any case this is not an actual causality. When you vote you don’t magically cause everyone else like you to vote, you are a distinct agent with distinct internal thoughts. Your individual actions have only very weak externalities beyond the direct consequences of your choice/vote.
> Unfortunately the delusional thinking behind voting crops up in leftist inclinations in general. They want to build giant organizations, giant armies, with individuals all acting in low return-on-investment ways, in hopes of aggregate impact. They don’t search for opportunities of high impact individual direct action.
I was getting into an argument with some people who were yelling at me for voting third party in the USA federal election. Because I'm a Texas voter it's my fault the state won't turn blue. "If all Texas non voters voted, and if all third party voters voted democrat, the state would turn blue." And if only people would just stop committing crime, if only people would just not steal from their employees, if only people would just Do The Right Thing...
Thanks for the link. As someone who feels disenfranchised with a countercultural thread running through, a lot of it resonated with me. I do tend to vote third party as well (maybe not this election given the state of the GOP) — after all, it’s your vote, why give it to someone you don’t agree with?
Though I will say that if you didn’t vote, then you don’t get to complain about the system because after all by not voting you’re rejecting a core tenet of the system. I gotta read more things out of this library, this is fun to noodle on.
> Though I will say that if you didn’t vote, then you don’t get to complain about the system because after all by not voting you’re rejecting a core tenet of the system. I gotta read more things out of this library, this is fun to noodle on.
As a previous water-carrier for this form of “if you don’t vote you don’t get to complain” propaganda, it’s crap. If there isn’t one single person you want to vote for on the ballot, you’re fully entitled to not vote and complain loudly about it. Making the choice to not exercise the one right does not preclude anyone’s use of the other.
Of course, you can complain loudly about who’s on the ballot. But you don’t get to complain about the outcome of the election because you decided to opt out.
Nah. You can opt out and complain about the outcome too. That’s my point. Not exercising the one does not preclude the other, despite what wannabe gatekeepers may declare otherwise.
Sure, if you’re active in local government / community. To rephrase, what I meant was you can’t complain if you don’t partake at all because then you’re offering no solution or doing anything to make things better.
I mean, if you're not in a military committing atrocities, clearly you shouldn't have any voice in saying if that military should commit atrocities- because then you’re offering no solution or doing anything to make things better. Makes perfect sense to me. /s
That said there are more than people on ballots to vote for, and some of those things (open space, conceal and carry laws, abortion restrictions, school choice) are possibly more important than the people at the top of the ticket because as local measures they have a higher chance to directly affect you.
I am a seasoned voter who submitted his ballot several weeks ago in addition to prior-water-carrier for said propaganda. I know how ballots work.
All of that is irrelevant.
Choosing not to exercise your right to vote is a valid choice, and choosing not to exercise that right does not preclude you from complaining about electoral outcomes and the policies of the extant and future governments.
In a vacuum, valid. You can do that. Depending on someone’s reasoning, I might do the same, but I don’t draw the line specifically at whether someone voted or not. It’s not decisive criteria.
Current water-carrier here; I find it especially hard to believe that anyone could find a ballot where a few minutes of internet research would not reveal an at least slightly preferable candidate -- if not for you personally, for your community.
Ultimately, I find the supposed "principled non-voter" to simply just be selfish.
Sure, maybe it’s selfish, but so is voting. That’s not a sin.
Voting someone into office is inherently about electing them into a position of power. Generally that means voters are going to prefer someone who is aligned with their interests. If you examine a ballot and determine that that is no one running, then it is fine to draw the conclusion that you would prefer to skip this election.
Voting also has consequences. If your world view is not developed enough to determine who that person would be, it is also fine to wait until you’re older before you begin voting in elections. Elections are recurring, it isn’t necessary to vote in every single one of them, and on every single item on the ballot until you have an interest in doing so.
Comment below not intended as direct rebuttal to parent comment.
It is just a relevant riff on the tired if you don't vote, don't complain BS.
Soap box mode = 1
Yes you do get to complain same as anyone does whether you or anyone voted or not.
Never let anyone tell you otherwise.
In the US, voting is not mandatory.
Casting voting as a condition of redressing ones grievances with government is actually just a psyops version of manufactured consent.
If you are inclined to consent, and you feel a vote is worth casting, by all means vote!
Maybe you think the whole thing lacks legitimacy? And you want to vote indie or third party or maybe even participate in ratfucking by voting for the very worst candidate a given party could get stuck with?
By all means vote.
Otherwise you are not required to vote and not voting is just fine.
You remain a citizen. The Constitution still applies and all that stuff we know and expect is exactly the same whether we vote or not.
Encouraging others to vote for many other reasons is fine too. Don't get me wrong there.
I am very specifically calling out the idea of ones participation in this US society being predicated on a vote.
That is just not true, and I really dislike advocacy rooted in falsehoods like this kind of advocacy always is.
Deciding not to murder and not to steal have measurable real-world effects. Voting in a way that results in no change does not. Voting on principle only works when you have proportional representation.
You should vote in a way that moves the needle the way you want it to move.
Anarchist: "If everyone would just stop forming governments"
>but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy
This is why no one takes anarchists seriously.
Now, the problem is not voting for first parties. It's lack of mandatory voting, and FPTP voting. Change it to ranked choice and suddenly third party votes wouldn't be wasted votes.
Except they don't. They aren't sitting up in their ivory towers thinking: "if everyone just did X, then everything would be better". No, they are executing plans to get to that outcome. They are recruiting people, coercing people, killing people, manipulating people, seizing power, etc. All working toward their goal.
I kind of disagree with that. Everyone has "just started doing" a ton of things in history. For example:
* Brushing their teeth, about a hundred years ago
* Regularly washing their hands, maybe 150 years? Less?
Etc.
Of course you can find people who still don't/do all of these and any other examples you come up with. But the point is that society as a whole has changed their view of these things, and what was abnormal is now normal. Which I'm pretty is what the "if people would just" folk really mean. Nobody is dumb enough to expect 100% of people to change 100% of the time, and it's unfair to their intelligence to assume that's what they mean.
Edit: removed one example that was too emotional and distracted from the point.
* I don't think there's actually any scientific studies proving brushing works, but the toothbrush definitely sheds microplastics into your body. Same with flossing.
* I don't see the need to completely obliterate all bacteria living on the surface of a part my body just because I touched my penis for a minute.
* I don't use shampoo either, it was brought from India just 200 years ago. Anti-dandruff shampoo isn't real and we don't even know exactly what causes it.
> I don't see the need to completely obliterate all bacteria living on the surface of a part my body just because I touched my penis for a minute.
It's not because you touched your penis, it's because you're going to touch things in the world that other people will also touch and you respect other people's preference not to touch your penis bacteria because you're not a sociopath. Right?
Does an otherwise clean penis have meaningfully more bacteria on it than other parts of the body? I suspect that when I touch my oenks I'm transferring more bacteria onto it from my hands than vice versa, considering my donger mostly stays in my pants while my hands manipulate objects all day long.
Yes it does. Dark, dank places grow much more bacteria than other places. It also happens to be right near your poop hole.
It isn't that hard to make an agar plate and put it under a lamp for a few days. Why you try a swab of crotch juice and a swab of face juice and incubate them each and see what you get?
It's always been my assumption that we wash our hands when we go to the bathroom for two reasons:
1. Wiping your butt can lead to feces getting in your hand. A lot of diseases can come from feces.
2. It's a good frequency to wash off whatever else you've been touching that day.
Assuming you go to the bathroom 3-7 times a day, that's that many opportunities to wash off the dirt you were digging in, trash you picked up off the street or someone else's hand you shook.
The core message of "everybody will not just" is that you need to think about why people haven't already just, and address that.
With tooth-brushing and hand-washing people actually didn't know it was that good for you. So massive public health education campaigns about how they prevent acute illnesses turned out to be enough to get significant adherence. That both are very low-cost / low-burden / low-effort activities are also reasons that education on the benefits was enough.
(And educating the next generation of children to instill proper tooth-brushing and hand-washing as habits remains a perpetual ongoing effort; kids do not "just" either, they need to be educated the same way.)
Compare this to many "why won't everyone just" issues where the information is already out - merely re-proclaiming stuff already known by the audience that-will-not-just, and expecting that to turn the needle, is nonsensical.
Brushing your teeth is the opposite of an "if everyone would just" problem. You do it for yourself, you benefit from it, and you aren't affected much by whether everyone else is doing it or not.
What non technical people think is easy is usually inversely proportional to what programmers think is easy. Making things easy for the user is really fucking hard most of the time.
OP: Well it's not always as simple as that. How will you get to the gym? Will you drive or ride a bike? What if there are other people using your usual weight machines, do you wait or do cardio? If you're working out after work, will you need to bring a change of clothes? How will my diet affect my workout? And how can I track my fitness to ensure I'm making progress?
Sometimes the answer is to just inject that JavaScript snippet. Of course all the follow up questions that OP mentioned to injecting that JS snippet are valid. But that is part of the "just". The person "just"ing that has assumed that you will consider all of those caveats and there should be no issues, because after all, why would there be if millions of people already use it without issue? It's up to the engineer to just do it, or push back if it's not actually as simple as it seems.
If someone says "just", it means they believe the presented solution is less complicated than some existing proposal.
That conversation should be a significant part of software development, and usually the answer is "no we can't just do that, because it wouldn't do what we are trying to do", or "yes, but it's not actually as simple as you seem to believe". Sometimes the answer is "yes, we can just do that" and everyone should be glad when that is the case.
If you can't handle normal engineering criticism, then you are an imposter. Real engineers generate alternatives, and evaluate alternatives proposed to them.
I really think you should consider what is implied by the word "just". When you say "no we can't just do that" it implies that you think someone will have missed the obvious. This may fall under "normal engineering criticism" to you, but I can assure you that some people will not see it as such and they won't like it. Which makes it a poor fit for good team communication. It will probably also make you disliked. It's obviously not always an negative word on its own. In your "yes, we can just do that" example it's fine. It's, however, also unnecessary as you could say: "yes, we can do that" and retain the full meaning.
> If you can't handle normal engineering criticism, then you are an imposter.
It's not normal engineering criticism though. "Just" is (in)famously known as a term that you use when you're overconfident while missing the whole picture. In many universities around here they will teach you about the dangers of it. Because it's really not good engineering to not do your analytics before suggesting solutions. I think most of us are guilty of using it. In my current team we laugh about it. We have a sort of swear jaw mentality when someone uses the term unironically, usually called out by the person who did it themselves. It's now a term we mostly use it as an internal joke, however, and people are never going to miss an opportunity to call the most complex challenges "just" in the most hilarious way they can.
When I worked in robotics at JPL, "just" was a running joke. We all tried to avoid using it, because we were all aware that it was a strong indicator of underestimating a challenge. We'd still catch each other using it all the time.
I agree. In this case, we felt that use of a particular word in a particular context reflected a mindset that many of us were trying to avoid. And, it became a fun game.
These are all small things. Say “just” because sometimes things are “just”. It applies the greedy simplicity approach to problems. This provides a baseline approach for one axis of performance.
Also, everyone who claims impostor syndrome in software is just actually an impostor.
I'm so happy to see this post. One of my professors back in college mentioned that "just" was a "four letter word" (akin to a cuss word) and that's stuck with me since.
"How long should this take? It's JUST calling an API."
"Why did it take so long to fix that bug? It was JUST a one line change."
"Stripe handles payment stuff, we JUST need to add it in!"
What a devious little word. It just papers over all the complexity!
"Just" is a useful word and concept. The main reason people say it is that it promotes clear communication. Sometimes, I wonder if people who don't like the word "just" just don't like what the word implies.
Of course, one can use the word "just" in a cynical or abusive way. Banning the word does not in any way solve that problem. Some people are cynical and want to say things cynically. Some people want to do some abusing. Don't curtail English itself to solve a problem with bad intentions.
I often use the word "just" when I want to communicate that I think there might be a simple solution. It is not wrong to communicate that!
I often use the word "just" to indicate that one reason is much more important than any other reason as in "maybe you just don't like people to imply that you've missed an obvious solution." This may be the truth. Don't try to tell me I cannot speak the truth.
Do not unjustly criticize the proper use of "just."
I think there's a missing distinction here between "Just do X!" and "Can we just do X?" The latter is a legitimate question and positive thing.
I was once asked if I could just do X and I said I'd have to spend hours ripping out Y and debugging its replacement. It'd slow down development and if there were any features from X they wanted, it'd be faster for me to write them for Y. Did they still want X? They didn't.
Another time I was prepared to build a robust, modular system with its own interface for everyone on the team to use. I mean, really put in the hours and design the hell out of that thing. And somebody said "Hey, can't you just do X?"
Sure, it'd take me five minutes. But you wouldn't get features A through F--you don't want any of those? They didn't.
How about No? There are a lot of things people missing and suggesting a simple solution that solves a lot of problem that they may forgetting or haven't checked justify usage of just. Many of those are already in OP post.
Looks like OP just too burned out.
163 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 198 ms ] threadSide note, I think the reason half of silicon valley has imposter syndrome is because they don't stick around for more than 1.8 years. It took me over a year for it to go away. Just chill out folks. You're doing fine. Stick around. Let's build up some knowledge and just make things better, okay?
What's wrong with this? That seems like proper usage to me. What the author has an issue with seems to be snobby, snarky, or sarcastic usage of the word "just."
Sometimes, the best answer is in fact "just add a DNS record."
The author should just write that instead of this long blog-post that gives the impression of someone easily offended.
Your claim is that people are too easily offended and so maybe these people will be (too) easily offend by the word. So what's really the benefit of using the word?
I mean if we're really debating question length then omitting the just also works... "Add a DNS record?" is sufficient.
Disagree with people's heuristics too often and you might find yourself looking for a job.
Why not (just) answer with "Add a DNS record." ?
There is weird symmetry here.
Just write a better article yourself.
It might "just" be simple to you, but that could be with your years of knowledge. Write for your audience. If it's an informational blogpost? "just" might annoy people who do get confused because they think it should be easy. "Just" make the app.
Step 1. Draw a circle.
Step 2. Just finish the lion.
Why can't you draw from my instructions?
The same principle is why I try not to teach any game as "Simple", even when it is to me. Some people cannot follow rules to a game, no matter how simple, and then are frustrated when the "simple" game doesn't come to them. Why add that layer of negativity?
Reality has a surprising amount of detail
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38407851
Why I stopped using the word “just” and why the #justaGP narrative has to stop
> If your solution to some problem relies on “If everyone would just...” then you do not have a solution. Everyone is not going to just. At no time in the history of the universe has everyone just, and they’re not going to start now.
Not true.
That said, Lopatin below also makes a valid counterpoint.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-the-c...
> The argument for voting is very Kantian: “act so that if everyone acted so…” and “if no literally one voted then voting would matter again” but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy. And in any case this is not an actual causality. When you vote you don’t magically cause everyone else like you to vote, you are a distinct agent with distinct internal thoughts. Your individual actions have only very weak externalities beyond the direct consequences of your choice/vote.
> Unfortunately the delusional thinking behind voting crops up in leftist inclinations in general. They want to build giant organizations, giant armies, with individuals all acting in low return-on-investment ways, in hopes of aggregate impact. They don’t search for opportunities of high impact individual direct action.
I was getting into an argument with some people who were yelling at me for voting third party in the USA federal election. Because I'm a Texas voter it's my fault the state won't turn blue. "If all Texas non voters voted, and if all third party voters voted democrat, the state would turn blue." And if only people would just stop committing crime, if only people would just not steal from their employees, if only people would just Do The Right Thing...
Though I will say that if you didn’t vote, then you don’t get to complain about the system because after all by not voting you’re rejecting a core tenet of the system. I gotta read more things out of this library, this is fun to noodle on.
As a previous water-carrier for this form of “if you don’t vote you don’t get to complain” propaganda, it’s crap. If there isn’t one single person you want to vote for on the ballot, you’re fully entitled to not vote and complain loudly about it. Making the choice to not exercise the one right does not preclude anyone’s use of the other.
Why not?
That said there are more than people on ballots to vote for, and some of those things (open space, conceal and carry laws, abortion restrictions, school choice) are possibly more important than the people at the top of the ticket because as local measures they have a higher chance to directly affect you.
All of that is irrelevant.
Choosing not to exercise your right to vote is a valid choice, and choosing not to exercise that right does not preclude you from complaining about electoral outcomes and the policies of the extant and future governments.
Sure. But it means I take you as seriously as I would any arm chair quarterback complaining about sports.
Ultimately, I find the supposed "principled non-voter" to simply just be selfish.
Voting someone into office is inherently about electing them into a position of power. Generally that means voters are going to prefer someone who is aligned with their interests. If you examine a ballot and determine that that is no one running, then it is fine to draw the conclusion that you would prefer to skip this election.
Voting also has consequences. If your world view is not developed enough to determine who that person would be, it is also fine to wait until you’re older before you begin voting in elections. Elections are recurring, it isn’t necessary to vote in every single one of them, and on every single item on the ballot until you have an interest in doing so.
It is just a relevant riff on the tired if you don't vote, don't complain BS.
Soap box mode = 1
Yes you do get to complain same as anyone does whether you or anyone voted or not.
Never let anyone tell you otherwise.
In the US, voting is not mandatory.
Casting voting as a condition of redressing ones grievances with government is actually just a psyops version of manufactured consent.
If you are inclined to consent, and you feel a vote is worth casting, by all means vote!
Maybe you think the whole thing lacks legitimacy? And you want to vote indie or third party or maybe even participate in ratfucking by voting for the very worst candidate a given party could get stuck with?
By all means vote.
Otherwise you are not required to vote and not voting is just fine.
You remain a citizen. The Constitution still applies and all that stuff we know and expect is exactly the same whether we vote or not.
Encouraging others to vote for many other reasons is fine too. Don't get me wrong there.
I am very specifically calling out the idea of ones participation in this US society being predicated on a vote.
That is just not true, and I really dislike advocacy rooted in falsehoods like this kind of advocacy always is.
Soap box mode = 0
Maybe I will take a look at this library myself!
You should vote in a way that moves the needle the way you want it to move.
>but if literally no one voted the government wouldn’t maintain legitimacy
This is why no one takes anarchists seriously.
Now, the problem is not voting for first parties. It's lack of mandatory voting, and FPTP voting. Change it to ranked choice and suddenly third party votes wouldn't be wasted votes.
* Brushing their teeth, about a hundred years ago
* Regularly washing their hands, maybe 150 years? Less?
Etc.
Of course you can find people who still don't/do all of these and any other examples you come up with. But the point is that society as a whole has changed their view of these things, and what was abnormal is now normal. Which I'm pretty is what the "if people would just" folk really mean. Nobody is dumb enough to expect 100% of people to change 100% of the time, and it's unfair to their intelligence to assume that's what they mean.
Edit: removed one example that was too emotional and distracted from the point.
* I don't think there's actually any scientific studies proving brushing works, but the toothbrush definitely sheds microplastics into your body. Same with flossing.
* I don't see the need to completely obliterate all bacteria living on the surface of a part my body just because I touched my penis for a minute.
* I don't use shampoo either, it was brought from India just 200 years ago. Anti-dandruff shampoo isn't real and we don't even know exactly what causes it.
Outwardly I'm a pretty normal person.
It's not because you touched your penis, it's because you're going to touch things in the world that other people will also touch and you respect other people's preference not to touch your penis bacteria because you're not a sociopath. Right?
I think I spotted the flaw in your line of thinking.
Vs putting a hand on their bare hip, then shaking your hand.
Also, groin sweat smells different and probably has extra hormones/pheromones in it
Maybe that didn't just remove their KFC-greased, butthole-stinky finger from their nose before we shook hands, or maybe they did.
It isn't that hard to make an agar plate and put it under a lamp for a few days. Why you try a swab of crotch juice and a swab of face juice and incubate them each and see what you get?
Assuming you go to the bathroom 3-7 times a day, that's that many opportunities to wash off the dirt you were digging in, trash you picked up off the street or someone else's hand you shook.
> but the toothbrush definitely sheds microplastics into your body
You can use miswak, which is a type of twig.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miswak
Alcogel for hands and alcoholic mouthwash are things to be sure but they aren't nearly as common.
With tooth-brushing and hand-washing people actually didn't know it was that good for you. So massive public health education campaigns about how they prevent acute illnesses turned out to be enough to get significant adherence. That both are very low-cost / low-burden / low-effort activities are also reasons that education on the benefits was enough.
(And educating the next generation of children to instill proper tooth-brushing and hand-washing as habits remains a perpetual ongoing effort; kids do not "just" either, they need to be educated the same way.)
Compare this to many "why won't everyone just" issues where the information is already out - merely re-proclaiming stuff already known by the audience that-will-not-just, and expecting that to turn the needle, is nonsensical.
"If everyone would just wash their hands."
"Why can't you just..."
OP: Well it's not always as simple as that. How will you get to the gym? Will you drive or ride a bike? What if there are other people using your usual weight machines, do you wait or do cardio? If you're working out after work, will you need to bring a change of clothes? How will my diet affect my workout? And how can I track my fitness to ensure I'm making progress?
Sometimes the answer is to just inject that JavaScript snippet. Of course all the follow up questions that OP mentioned to injecting that JS snippet are valid. But that is part of the "just". The person "just"ing that has assumed that you will consider all of those caveats and there should be no issues, because after all, why would there be if millions of people already use it without issue? It's up to the engineer to just do it, or push back if it's not actually as simple as it seems.
Indeed. "Just" implies an assumption has been made, but it's not clear what assumptions nor whether they are justified.
Which makes it very nice for getting your assumptions checked.
That conversation should be a significant part of software development, and usually the answer is "no we can't just do that, because it wouldn't do what we are trying to do", or "yes, but it's not actually as simple as you seem to believe". Sometimes the answer is "yes, we can just do that" and everyone should be glad when that is the case.
If you can't handle normal engineering criticism, then you are an imposter. Real engineers generate alternatives, and evaluate alternatives proposed to them.
> If you can't handle normal engineering criticism, then you are an imposter.
It's not normal engineering criticism though. "Just" is (in)famously known as a term that you use when you're overconfident while missing the whole picture. In many universities around here they will teach you about the dangers of it. Because it's really not good engineering to not do your analytics before suggesting solutions. I think most of us are guilty of using it. In my current team we laugh about it. We have a sort of swear jaw mentality when someone uses the term unironically, usually called out by the person who did it themselves. It's now a term we mostly use it as an internal joke, however, and people are never going to miss an opportunity to call the most complex challenges "just" in the most hilarious way they can.
Outside of slurs, blanket avoidance of words mostly just adds unnecessary obfuscation.
Also, everyone who claims impostor syndrome in software is just actually an impostor.
Perhaps I misunderstand you here, but that is a frankly astounding claim. Anyone can have a crisis of confidence. It doesn’t mean you’re a fraud.
> If someone’s having to read your docs, it’s not “simple” https://justsimply.dev/
"How long should this take? It's JUST calling an API."
"Why did it take so long to fix that bug? It was JUST a one line change."
"Stripe handles payment stuff, we JUST need to add it in!"
What a devious little word. It just papers over all the complexity!
Of course, one can use the word "just" in a cynical or abusive way. Banning the word does not in any way solve that problem. Some people are cynical and want to say things cynically. Some people want to do some abusing. Don't curtail English itself to solve a problem with bad intentions.
I often use the word "just" when I want to communicate that I think there might be a simple solution. It is not wrong to communicate that!
I often use the word "just" to indicate that one reason is much more important than any other reason as in "maybe you just don't like people to imply that you've missed an obvious solution." This may be the truth. Don't try to tell me I cannot speak the truth.
Do not unjustly criticize the proper use of "just."
"we just have to..." from me, means it will take just[0] an order or two magnitude more work than you expect.
[0] see what I did there?
I was once asked if I could just do X and I said I'd have to spend hours ripping out Y and debugging its replacement. It'd slow down development and if there were any features from X they wanted, it'd be faster for me to write them for Y. Did they still want X? They didn't.
Another time I was prepared to build a robust, modular system with its own interface for everyone on the team to use. I mean, really put in the hours and design the hell out of that thing. And somebody said "Hey, can't you just do X?"
Sure, it'd take me five minutes. But you wouldn't get features A through F--you don't want any of those? They didn't.
I just did X.