This. I do development coaching and training. I’m totally burned out because my job doesn’t matter. These companies don’t care. They hire me to “increase code quality” but that ends up being a lie. They just use me to get their teams to crank out shit faster, and I do mean “shit”. They don’t care if the systems blow up a few times a year or once a week. Banks, oil companies, airlines, all of them. They loose millions because of it too, still it doesn’t matter. No one (in leadership) gives a fuck. “Just make this quarter’s goal” is all that matters.
Fucking equifax for crying out loud, NO CONSEQUENCES. If this isn’t ironic enough do some googling on why Equifax is named such. tl;dr This isn’t their first rodeo. They once fucked up so big they had to change their name.
Sucking at software only has consequences in a few industries, usually ones where the product is software, the product is discretionary, and the customer is fickle. Even then it usually sucks.
These same companies are audit conscious (about money), they’re crazy about regulatory compliance, and workplace harassment. Why? These things have real consequences.
The sooner some company gets fined one year’s profit or an exec goes to jail the sooner this shit will actually matter to them.
Your method is refactored to be super-fast and have no branches? Nobody cares.
Elegant, re-usable architecture? Nobody cares.
You've optimized an inner loop in assembly and increased speed by 30%? Nobody cares.
Made it to zero compiler warnings? Nobody cares.
No known crashers left in the bug tracker? Nobody cares.
Fixed that bug that's been in the code for two years? Nobody cares.
Patched a security hole that could allow a crazy bad attack? Nobody cares.
The vast majority of software shops out there care only that something--anything--ships as fast as remotely possible, and as long as it does not kill the customer, it's a success. Nobody in leadership gives a single fuck about anything else. There are a few places where this is not true, and good software people tend to collect there, but it's true for the vast majority of places where you will work. The sooner you accept this, the less likely you'll burn out.
Software should really only be measured by the value it provides. If a terribly buggy piece of poorly written code still saves hundreds of man hours a week, it's a win. (Unit tests be damned)
If that big ball of mud that's using 20 year old technology still prints a billion dollars a year - that's a win. (Microservices be damned)
If some slapdash jquery-and-duct-tape web app still solves a specific problem I have, that's a win. (React SPAs be damned)
Does crappy software flourish while beautiful software dies? Sometimes. But usually code hygiene, security, bug counts and crashes are not what makes or breaks the success of a piece of software. Developers often think their work is the most important, when in actuality it is usually not. Sometimes you really just are a cog in the machine.
This mentality is the reason why sometimes -- but not always! -- my phone won't play music in my car until I restart the _car_.
This mentality is why game development companies get away with charging full price for unfinished, bug-ridden games with crippled features and missing content.
This mentality is the reason why I couldn't see my credit card in the list of my accounts on my credit union's online banking site for several days.
This mentality is why Experian and Equifax don't report the same credit score for me.
This mentality is why I feel ashamed every time a receptionist apologizes for the wait, because they "have been having problems with the system."
Most importantly, this mentality is why I have to worry about whether someone will steal my identity because people keep writing shitty code on top of shitty code and my personal information keeps getting leaked.
When I'm so disgusted by my own profession, no wonder I ended up burned out.
We want everything fast! Nobody is willing to put in the work and get the reward after a longer period of time... No! We want results now! We don't want to wait for the food to be properly cooked, we want it now, so we go for fast food. We don't want to put in 1 year of work to learn something new so we can feel that we achieved something, we want it now, so we play a game where we can 'win' in 30 minutes. We don't want to build a relationship and eventually end up being intimate, we want it now, so we go for 'one night stands'.
Then you ask yourself... is it weird that the economic system works the same? That the software industry works the same? :/
> We don't want to wait for the food to be properly cooked, we want it now, so we go for fast food.
We go for fast food because it saves time. When I opt to order in instead of going out for lunch, or grab a burger from McDonald's en route, I do that because eating is mostly instrumental. I don't want to eat at that point, I have to, and the sooner I can fill myself up, the sooner I can get back to doing the things I actually care about.
Fast food, and food delivery services, allow people to choose to spend more time on other things, when those other things are more important to them. The same people will enjoy a finely cooked meal on a different occasion, when they prioritize it.
> We don't want to put in 1 year of work to learn something new so we can feel that we achieved something, we want it now, so we play a game where we can 'win' in 30 minutes.
Spending a year on learning something to just get a quick feeling of achievement is a very stupid way to go about it. Videogames are better for that. Learning is better for getting long-term feelings of achievement, and to actually gain knowledge/skills that you can use for something. And again, it's not something new - our generation wastes time on videogames, previous generations wasted time playing soccer, cards, darts, and doing tons of other quick-reward activities.
> We don't want to build a relationship and eventually end up being intimate, we want it now, so we go for 'one night stands'.
One-night stands exist for as long as humans are humans. Nothing fundamental changed, only the hookup methods evolved with population density and available communication tools.
--
> Then you ask yourself... is it weird that the economic system works the same? That the software industry works the same?
Nah, they don't work the same. In them, the actors are not driven internally, they're driven externally. People write shitty software, or sell shitty products, not because of their need for instant gratification, but because of market pressures. A fast hack sold by your marketing team can be a difference between you getting $100M contract versus not getting it, or getting your product on the market first versus a week after your competitor. Market economy, because of all its efficiency, is what creates the culture of suck.
It's so obvious. But until you realllllly sit down and internalize it... then you can be at peace with the shitty service of Comcast, etc.
In other words: Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Ha ha, maybe this is why they don't want older engineers. They're wise, cynical, bitter, skeptical and not likely to suffer bullshit management.
You just have realize that most software buildings are tents, and there are a few buildings that you can use out there.
I don't know if the world is getting a shittier place. But it surely is getting less reliable.
It is, because everything is being optimized into literal minimum viable products. That's how competitive markets work - whatever aspect of your product or business you can cut out to save money and thus get ahead of your competitors, you will cut out, and then your competitors will cut it out too, in order not to get outcompeted by you. This race-to-the-bottom phenomenon is fundamental to how competition works, and the result is that products gradually lose quality.
It's the reason why your grandfather's washing machine probably works 'till this day, while you have to fix your new one every year, and will probably replace it in five years. "Building to last" is a good example of a quality that the market economy optimized out over time across pretty much all products in all sectors.
Adjusting the cost of each product with inflation, things really are built like they used to be. Your grandfathers washing machine both cost far more than a current model* (again, adjusted for inflation), and all of the poorly built old washing machines broke and no on sees/thinks about them anymore.
* I am having trouble finding a source on washing machines specifically, however I'm assuming they followed the same trends as most commodities tracked by BLS: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ap
As questionable as citing Reddit is, this post rather well encompasses what I am trying to get at: https://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts/comments/4kn8ku/the_...
The way I see the post you're replying to is either you learn to cope with these things or you'll burn out faster.
Since there's no accountability, if you want to do things the right way, you'll have to do it by yourself and be prepared to swim against the tide..
Most of those bugs and failures you listed are really inconsequential in their contexts.
Car won't play your phone's music? Use the radio. Game has bugs? Play another game until it's patched, or find inventive ways to use the bug. Can't see your CC? You can still charge on it and pay its balance. Experian and Equifax don't report same credit score? Your creditors aren't reporting to every credit bureau.
Ashamed that someone else's system doesn't work? I can't help you there. That's some deep psychological issue.
About 10 years ago I came to understand that mediocre runs the world. All these people, who are your bosses, who are getting raises and promotions, they're the B/C students from college. They don't care about perfect. They really only care about finishing what they're assigned and going on with their outside life.
If you want perfect, do it on your own time.
Yes, I expect that for most things we could find a context that could render them inconsequential.
> Car won't play your phone's music? Use the radio. Game has bugs? Play another game until it's patched, or find inventive ways to use the bug. Can't see your CC? You can still charge on it and pay its balance. Experian and Equifax don't report same credit score? Your creditors aren't reporting to every credit bureau.
Elevator doesn't work? Use the stairs. Public restroom is filthy? Hold your breath and don't touch anything. Lost a tooth on the right side of your mouth because of an incompetent endodontist? Chew on the left side.
I'm not being facetious here. I really do agree that almost anything is tolerable if we decide to. That last example is from personal experience: I have lost three teeth on the right side of my mouth and I have to chew on the left. Most of the time, I don't even think about it anymore. And it really isn't that big of a deal -- it doesn't have a very significant impact on the quality of my life.
> Ashamed that someone else's system doesn't work? I can't help you there. That's some deep psychological issue.
It could be. Like I commented elsewhere, I would expect a doctor to be ashamed of Andrew Wakefield, but maybe most of them aren't. And even if they are, it could be a deep psychological issue that I choose to compare the state of our industry to what Wakefield did in his.
But here's the thing: I know that we can do better. Not perfect, better. But we don't have to, because we lack accountability.
Sure, perfect is the enemy of the good. But complacency is the last refuge of the mediocre.
Personally I get angry in those situations... the larger the company, typically the more safeguard crap in place that's supposed to prevent those issues, the more pissed off I get. But that's just me. I get angry when I see evidence of poor/buggy quality in business software the more visible it is.
why would you feel ashamed for waiting a little longer?
that's an odd thing to be insecure about
The problem is when the "negative value" is externalized leading to false evaluations. "Oops, so sorry we leaked all your social security numbers. Our bad."
Because it's not really the value overall the software provides that's being talked about but the instantaneous, immediately visible payoff to a single consumer that software, the people or that consumables are getting judged by. If the software is going to result in trouble over time, if it's going to have security holes that will cost a lot over time, if it's going to commit you to garbage that's updated less and less frequently, etc. None of this calculated. Just as the health costs of sugary drinks don't get calculated, the social costs of poor education don't get calculated, etc.
Is it possible that the value assigned to keeping that information secret was, in the end, actually appropriate?
Ask someone who's had their identity stolen.
I’d hire you.
The vast majority of people making agregrious security errors know no better. You could argue that whoever hired them shares or shoulders the blame, but to suggest they’re not decent people is a stretch. Most I’m sure are. They’re also likely infosec idiots.
Now if you know something is terribly insecure, understand what’s involved in fixing it, and go out of your way not to, then yes ethics come into play. I see that the same as an engineer (in the true sense of the word) staying silent on an issue involving automobile brakes that could lead to casualties. The consequences are not 1:1 but the ethical question is in the category.
If your bugs can hurt people (financially, physically) I think you need to work a bit harder to make sure it doesn't sneak into your work. Whatever you believe helps there (unit tests, formal verification, ...); if you didn't do all you could do because you are not paid for it (your boss tells you to add features, don't waste time on things that didn't break yet for instance), what should you do? Seems like a real issue for professional coders as there are not so many options; not many companies will pay to prevent these kinds of things unless they had a big issue before already (and someone(s) got fired / sued for it already).
But as one HNer to another, I was really talking about your second case. To claim here that security can ever be discounted, as the person I was replying to implied, is pretty much inexcusable. Everyone here knows that security affects more than just your business, so no one here should be solely applying business logic to it.
But those bugs could easily lead to mistakes in the output.
Code quality matters and has tangible consequences in that niche, and it was awesome to work in that environment.
I haven't worked anywhere like that previously, and I think the key factors that brought code quality to the forefront were:
* Bugs cost sales
* Poor code caused friction for features a significant amount (reduced ROI)
* Small teams and an insanely tight customer relationship to those teams. The client needed to have a stakeholder in our team or as close to that as possible.
But most importantly it was just the company culture from top to bottom. The director cared, he made the project managers care, and we already cared because it's more fun to write good code.
We did take on a rushed project at one point, so there is a good comparison in that project. It shipped, but everyone was unhappy, some key people left and had to be re-hired for. It triggered a very transparent discussion roughly titled "let's figure out how to never do that again" and to that end they curated the clients more carefully, and put in some checks to see if projects are a good fit.
But I understand that is probably unique, and at previous jobs the "good enough to make money" mantra has worked out okay.
I think when your software domain is complex and rapid, it pays to have sound architecture. When it is simple, or slow to change, it doesn't matter quite as much.
Whoa now. The Toyota 'unintended acceleration' case showed us that it's fine to kill the customer. The court declared themselves incapable of penalizing even the most stupendously egregious example of criminal negligence we're likely to see (Of 90+ 'required' and 'suggested' practices in automotive industry firmware coding practices, they did 4 in the code in question. The developers didn't have a bug tracker or static analysis tools. Typical of all organizations, the software engineers had no real power to demand more time or testing, etc). They lost a civil wrongful death case and paid out $4 million, then settled with the plaintiffs out of court before the jury could award punitive damages. So killing is OK.
The issue is that, I think, software people need to stand up for themselves. They need to tell executives no, and refuse to pump out slapdash work. They need to take responsibility for the successes and failures of the company. The practical truth is that in most organizations, the software is the most valuable part of the entire business and the thing with the power to enable the company to excel or fall flat. We've been waiting for executives to recognize this since the 1980s and they still just see the software people as people who do typing.
After a 10-month search, NASA and NHTSA scientists found no electronic defect in Toyota vehicles. Driver error or pedal misapplication was found responsible for most of the incidents. The report ended stating, "Our conclusion is Toyota's problems were mechanical, not electrical."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9311_Toyota_vehicle...
Third advice. It's not enough to fix bug, everyone MUST know that you fixed that weird bug that customers were complaining about for years and noone could understand the cause.
The important word here is pretend. If the system is safety critical you'd think that quality matters. It doesn't. What matters is following the process laid out in ISO 26262 or whatever standard applies to your field. Whether or not that improves quality is not important (it does, but only a little). The important part is that you have reduced/no liability for accidents if you can prove that you did everything by the book.
Edit: It's all about documenting that those things have been done and signed off on, so keeping track of paperwork.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Do_You_Care_What_Other_Pe...
...where he talks about his role and questions regarding the Challenger shuttle disaster; I don't know if things have changed much since then at NASA, but I suspect they haven't, given Columbia and such.
After all, that is the point of those heavy processes: manage to product something fairly reliable despite the acknowledged presence of morons and shitty managers. The process does not try to eradicate those people, it works around them with some kind of redundancy.
Having been one of those 'concerned' people, I must admit it is exhausting. You know that if some work comes from this guy, or that company, it will be 90% shit and you have to explain them again and again what is wrong and how to fix it, or do it yourself when you are really fed up. So basically you do your job + the slackers' job. That is how the system works. As a system, the result is not too bad. As far as individuals are concerned, however...
If you have to remind people of it, it's as good as not existing in the first place.
> What can you do for me or have done for me recently?
Services provided so far in the past that need to be reminded are at best irrelevant and it can actually hurt you to bring them up.
I'm not saying that it is nice, only that humans behave individually and (even more collectively) according to this.
You might also carefully consider your company's culture when deciding how to split your efforts between new (user-visible) features, preventive maintenance, and bugs affecting end users (especially any VIP end users that have your managers' ears).
For example, a 'Hero' culture rewards last-minute, late night, death march efforts, whether to fix an urgent problem, or to add that one feature that is (supposedly) needed to land a specific high-value customer/sale.
I suggest reading the comments on this thread:
I learned this at my first software engineer (though we didn't call it such) job back when I was 18; closing in on 45 years of age, and I'm still here at it, and don't see that changing soon. I have thought about management, but I really don't have such experience, and I'm not a real people person anyhow - plus I like to code.
Another thing I have learned - at least here in the United States: Not only do they not care about quality, they usually don't have any loyalty to you as an employee. They'll let you go without any warning at all, and if you're lucky, you'll get some severance pay.
So save your money, build a savings account with FU cash in it (6 months to a year of salary - or more), and don't be afraid to drop an employer like a hot potato if things aren't working out, or a better offer is in the works.
And above all else, don't let your skills stagnate.
Do they care if a year down the road your TTM times increase tenfold?
We know that the bad code slows us down. Why do we write it?
Why do we write the code that slows us down? How much does it
slow us down? It slows us down a lot. And every time we touch
the modules we get slowed down again. Every time we touch bad
code it slows us down, what do we write this stuff what slows
us down?
And the answer to that is: well we have to go fast.
I'll let you to deal with the logical inconsistency there, my
message to you today is—you don't go fast by writing crap.
When nobody cares about you get the point sooner or later where you can't ship, they've probably launched a product but there's still a lot more to ship in future. Eventually they become so mired in technical debt that they care.
When they realize they've invested a hundred million dollars in something that now has no value? They care. (especially if it's a turd before it gets out the door)
When a start up comes along and eats their lunch because they aren't weighed down be legacy code? They care.
When they lose revenue because they can't keep customers happy? They care.
The problem is that the professionalism of software developers doesn't allow them to learn these lessons early and hard enough.
> They care.
> They care.
> They care.
I disagree. They will hire a consulting company to do a root cause analysis. The Ha'vad grads from McKinsey will swoop in, determine that the past doesn't matter, you need to get to black and to get to black, the St. Louis team needs to go, along with 20% of the following 7 teams....
No, they don't care. And never will.
Edit: Unless we elect people who take away legal protections in place to regulate safety critical software
Where?
It's over two decades since that was written. I remember reading it when it was first published. Does it look much like the future?
`Why? These things have real consequences.`
To a business they see software/engineers as a expense. The whole focus as a business is to provide a service that people are will to pay more than it costs to provide said service.
Everything else doesn't matter, what does matter for a business is $$$$$ and making sure business doesn't get sued because bill touched jill with his #####.
For what my words are worth, I do think you need to take a step back and view it from a Business person perspective and attempt to align your goals with theirs. Get out of your cube and go and meet CEO's and CIO and talk to them about their problems and what their goals are. Then see if you two can work together to achieve their goals and bring value to the table.
Even writing this I've could think of 10 or 20 different business discussions you could have.
Anecdotally, this is one of the first things I try to gauge at a prospective employer. "Are their development teams seen as cost centers, or profit centers?" If the company works with technology a lot and doesn't see technology as being particularly important to its bottom line, that's usually a bad sign.
Also, discussions with C-levels tend to be pretty one-dimensional. It doesn't matter how much their infrastructure is falling apart, they'll still stonewall with something along the lines of, "our goal this quarter is new user acquisition - how does this improve those numbers?"
And they won't accept, "users cannot sign up if everything is broken" as an answer.
Like I said before you're viewing it from the perspective of a developer but not from the perspective of a Business person.
Instead of saying `Users cannot sing up if everything is broken` you need to see it from a Business perspective, and communicate it to them in the language they understand.
For example, `From our quarterly earnings report we need to have 10,0000 new clients signed up by the end of the month to reach the goal. We have on average 2,000 sign-ups per day. On the 2nd, 3rd of last month two of the critical system's fell over, and this result in a estimated 4,000 failed client acquisitions. The estimate from our quarterly earnings each new customer bring's in a revenue of $300 net profit from each client for the quarter. As a result of the system crash our quarterly earnings will be down 1.2 Million.`
Your job is to communicate clearly in the language they understand how it will achieve their goals. You're not the only department/manager who is requiring resources from the Business. As I stated before you're there to serve the business to achieve their goals.
Let's put it this way: Netflix has one of the most robust microservice architectures I know of. I promise you will find zero mention of it anywhere on their customer-facing pages. Because that is not the problem that Netflix solves for their customer; they solve a media library and streaming problem.
The business is your customer. You need to understand their problems and how you're going to fix them. Everything else is an implementation detail.
I'm not. Our industry is full of academics who've been told "this is the right way to do it, everything else is stupid" for the entirety of their education. They're academics, trained by other academics, ignoring the broader reality of why we do these things at all.
Another way to think of it is as of user acquisition problem. You have to highlight the benefits in a way that is compelling to them. At the end of a day all progress/fiascos in a company comes down to consistent and effective communication.
You are devaluing yourself and you are devaluing all the developers who don't want to ruin their week end at work.
I had to break it down to one of them "Listen, we've seen that the site being faster gets us X% more conversions, if the site was down, or if the site was ugly X% of the time and cost us those conversions, you'd be breathing down my neck to fix it, why is this any different...?" reply after a few seconds of thought "You're right, but you'll never convince Leadership"
Thus fuelling the idea that this sort of thing will just be done as other work is happening with no time budgeted for it.
> I obviously didn't bring to the demonstration that I had volunteered the time, it suited my point to make it seem like it was something easy I could do as an aside
I understand the impulse, but in long term this leads to inflated estimates from management - and tech side has only themselves to blame. When we pretend things take shorter then they really do, dont be surprised when they learn to expect our lie to become truth.
Long term here can be as short as three months.
No, there isn't.
Google is showing one series of ads per page. The study showed that having more legitimate results per page decreased their revenues. Of course, it gives less room for ads and less page views.
The work you did probably is great and do I think its above your average developer. Somewhere in the the top 10%. Though how you conducted yourself in the face of management was down right petty/folly.
Yes you did the best job in the world. You improved the performance of the serves by % and it did make management of those server's easier. Though you need to think about what you've done in the eyes of management.
Firstly you've modified the server's without permission. You've run tests out-side of work hours that could of impacted the business bottom line. For all I know (its up for debate) but your senior managers had more pressing issues on the table, and having a young code money running around outside office hours is the LAST thing they want to hear.
`It's not a simple as you may think it is.`
Some of the things that come to mind, and honestly I would of pulled you into a office to explain yourself if you're on my team.
1) Did you document all the changes you've made to the server
2) Did you back-up or store any sensitive information off-site during out of office hours
3) Did you modify critical system files that could cause another dependent system to fail
4) What ETA/Service level agreements if any did you break when bringing down the server for maintenance?
5) Did we lose any Security Certification with you modifying the server or changing any of the certificates on the server?
We're software developer, and yes when we see problem's we want to fix it to our best of our ability. Though when you're in a Business there are many thing you may not be aware of. In this situation I would honestly say you're lucky to keep your job! I hope you take it into consideration next time you want to go out-side of your duties.
I don't want to come down harsh on you, but there are times when you see a bad situation and there is nothing you can do about it. You notify the people who're higher than you of the situation and the dangers. It's then up to them to make the decision. After they've made the decision that is it. If the server blows up during the weekend, and they want you to come in and fix it (even when its there fuckup) you just take your hourly rate and x10. So if your hourly rate is $50hr and the server blows up, then your new rate is going to be $500 per hour to come in during the weekend to fix the mess.
Many of the points you've raised are moot outside of large corporate environments and projects.
It is likely that the commenter has root access to all of the things you mention and touches them on a daily basis. It is likely that they are not inundated with all of the heavy process you're bringing up. It is likely that all of the security concerns you raise are not even part of their current business. Working outside of set business hours is likely not a concern; overtime is likely uncompensated anyway and there probably aren't considerable office security protocols (they probably have keys and an access code for the whole office).
The points you've raised do not apply to most small development teams.
The only "clandestine" part is that I added the split test, and did some work outside of the set of features that was scheduled.
We had no policies around SLA, developing off-site, security or restricting sensitive information (think potential FERPA/HIPPA violation) which are yet other "non-features" that I tried to get them to adopt.
I implemented this entirely above-board, with more precautions and consideration than were taken by other developers on that team for the day-to-day.
The engineer is trying to optimize/normalize his free time by acknowledging quality issues, the management is trying to optimize their income by sweeping them under the rug.
The engineer is ultimately liable for the problem. Quality is insured with his reputation and free time.
The business guys almost always leave at 4:00pm and their bonuses are based on a metric not related to quality.
Not everything is quantifiable like that. If I'm writing code and I take the time to make it 30% faster then it won't make a difference to our bottom line. If that's done everywhere then customers will like us more, be more likely to stay with us and be more likely to recommend us, but that can't be quantified in my day to day work.
It is already possible to more-or-less show how a code change (bug/fix, new feature, change in storage backend, etc.) directly affects your IAAS bill at the end of each month, and taking it a step further by tying in some instrumentation and formulas (of the sort often used to calculate the effectiveness of marketing funnels for optimization and A/B testing) to show the concomittant effect on revenue allows ROI to be calculated.
So, I am pretty sure that Finance-Oriented Programming is going to be a thing not so many years from now, tied into the whole toolchain, and very few - not developers nor their managers - seem prepared for that sea-change (some Operations folks are probably a bit better off in terms of mindset and processes).
It's not a matter of opinion, but what the term means. They are cost centers unless they are closing sales (or being billed for about 3x what they cost, which is still way less than sales people will generate, being closer to 10x+ cost).
Best thing any employee can do is find out how their company actually makes money and understand how they align. Unfortunately, the highest business expense is salaries and one of the most important things for most businesses is remaining runway. So there is huge pressure to keep salaries down, particularly in cost centres, which aren't directly extending runway. If it's a service business it can get worse, as the money is typically made on billable hours - creating a perverse incentive to have cheaper and less efficient people to bill out rather than a 10xer (outside a senior business facing role). As long as they are capable and not so bad that they lose the client, it's often more efficient to have cheaper mediocre people from a business point of view.
Remaining runway is a measure that only exist for companies in the red. For most business it doesn't even exist.
Edit: to be more clear the discussion usually goes like this:
- Me: “where are we on fixing this bug? it’s been two years and customers are still complaining”
- Engineering: “we can’t touch at this component it’s a mess but we are rewriting it, this bug will no longer exists and it’ll be so much powerful, just wait a few month”
We all know how it ends. And when business pressure comes because it failed to deliver it’s all “business is evil we need more time to do great software!”
What we really need is senior and experienced engineers IMHO
Jesus Christ listen to yourself. You don’t know anything about me or how I approach things with my clients.
I care about how code affects humans but business don’t have to be responsible for how they hurt people with it.
Implied in this statement is that the parent has a myopic perspective on the business world. Based on my read of his comment, I don't think that's fair - and moreover would question whether or not your perspective is as unique as you apparently think it is.
In other words, I think you're patting yourself on the back a little much for figuring out how to chew before swallowing.
Oh right.
Good luck even ATTEMPTING to arrange a meeting with a Fortune company's CEO. "Who from what department again?". Worse yet if it not even your company's CEO.
Maybe, if you are lucky, you can get to skip a level or too. Software engineers are usually very far removed from the top leadership.
I've friends at ReliaQuest and I know it is a good company, but I am frustrated that the leadership at Equifax thinks that security is a minor issue that they can outsource to a 3rd party. If a company deals with sensitive financial data, shouldn't security be a core competence?
But in my experience, this is not true AT ALL. More experienced people might work less hours, but will produce the actual end results much quicker - both in hours and in calendar time.
Especially when considering that less experienced devs will (on the average) cause more bugs and worse code structure - in the long run this causes a ton of extra work. In my opinion that is the main difference that easily makes someone a "10x" or a "100x" developer.
Of course, on the other hand over-engineering at an early phase of a project is very much a thing too - starting with microservices, using the latest framework or language, etc.
Microservices however unfortunately have become a fashionable cure-all that's applied indiscriminately to software projects of all sizes, ages and purposes. Hardly anyone seems to be asking anymore why they're actually using microservices. Everyone uses them because everyone else does.
Microservices always incur overhead both in terms of engineering and network latency as well as maintenance / administration. If you have more than 1 microservice you need infrastructure for orchestrating and monitoring these services.
For all that to be worth it you need to have pretty solid arguments for using microservices in the first place. For a new project I'd usually advise against using microservices right from the start. Doing so is often rooted in the same kind of fallacy that has people worry about Facebook-scale scalability before they even have their first user.
If you start having problems that can be solved with microservices then good for you! This means your software is successful and has grown so much in terms of features and responsibilities it's starting to become intractable with standard approaches.
This is precisely why Martin Fowler argues for starting with a monolith first: https://martinfowler.com/bliki/MonolithFirst.html
A traditional monolith gives you the opportunity to learn about the problem domain first without having to worry about implementation details such as microservices.
Makes perfect sense to me.
A lot of what he's arguing against is cargo cult programming, and I think it's fair for anyone to argue against that. If your only explanation for why you chose one architecture or design pattern over the others (especially if that option introduces a lot of additional drawbacks) is "because that's just what you do", you need to stop and objectively evaluate what you're doing.
There is a link on that page for the more generic dataflow based programing. I'd advise anybody to follow it and simply ignore its specializations until they master the generic one. I'd also say that any program should be designed from multiple points of view, so do not stop at dataflow.
That's my yardstick - if I see poor man's distributed transaction attempts happening across service boundaries I'll start to assume over-engineering / cargo culting. If I see services acting a nodes in an pipeline or a flowchart, preferably with multiple incoming lines, it smells better to me.
If you are doing microservices, I hope you have a good reason for doing so. Because there are significant problems with using microservices.
In the last five years or so, I've done contract work at several large corporations. In every single one, they didn't care about defects or code structure. They just wanted to ship an application in a very short period of time.
When I asked about the same thing you pointed out, the response was the same, "We don't care about defects once it's released, and we don't care what the code looks like. It needs to work well for our end users, nothing else. Besides, in 6 months, we're going to redesign and rebuild it anyways."
It just seems nobody cares about long term maintenance, and likewise, they don't care much about the code or the amount of defects that code is generating. Pretty maddening when you think about it. Nobody cares about quality anymore.
1) working great and well for the end user, for the function of the software
2) bugs and code structure
Code quality can be so bad that it matters. But beyond a basic level, it does not matter. Bad code that works beats great code that doesn't fulfill it's function every single time.
I once had this great lesson. I was brought into a team as a TL/Manager. We were making a product that was doing pretty well, in terms of attention it was getting and so on. 1 week in, I learn that about 70% of the code is tests, 30% is actual code that's used at runtime. 2 weeks in I learn that everybody's always working on the tests, never on the program (there's a reasonably good reason for this even). 3 weeks in I explore the program, and at some point I try to run it. Turns out the "main" function is broken. Because of crashes (plural) during variable initialization it never gets to the first line of the main function ... How long had these bugs existed (it wasn't just one), you ask ? Well, over 3 months. Doesn't happen in the (VERY extensive) test run.
Lessons learned in that project:
1) test driven development is a great place to start, and a VERY bad way to run projects once they're even 10% into their delivery schedule
2) even the best tests don't check everything
3) even the best tests don't guarantee that even the most basic simple parts of the program work. In fact, tests actually WORK AGAINST THIS.
4) the value of a system test (where the entire program runs, by actually going into main and doing what it's supposed to on a realistic example) is incredible. The criticism that TDD developers have is valid, that if it fails you won't know (necessarily) where it failed, but isn't that serious. Firstly, you'll usually have some idea of where it failed, and secondly, and this is the big one, you'll know it fails. FAR preferable to the other situation. They're also very hard to write. Tough. You need them, far more than you need unit tests on 5 line functions.
5) you are MUCH better off with a "hero" programmer (bad name, "loose cannon" would be more apt description) AND someone acting 90% anal about tests, and managing the inevitable conflict, than you are without the loose cannon. Managing that conflict will be a challenge though. And yes, that means that, to the utter dismay of the TDD developer, you'll have to tell him to let in code without, or with bad tests, from time to time.
I've made the mistake at one company of thinking that my job was to architect solid software that was sustainable for the long term.
What they really wanted was to have software that was "good enough" and had all of the checkbox features to be attractive to potential acquirers so the investors would stop breathing down their necks.
Jack Dorsey became a billionaire from those losses. The same is true for probably all other early investors. For an investment in Twitter to have done really badly, there was a "bear" period of about 2 years.
And before you say it, remember that even Google stock dropped 60%, Facebook's 70%. Twitter's drop actually looks pretty reasonable in comparison.
So firstly, I don't think twitter is bad, and secondly, I don't think people have given up on twitter, and thirdly, that seems pretty justified.
Wouldn't you ?
As an employee who has a job because the company exists? Yes
As a retail investor - I wouldn't be quite as happy.
Contrast that to the small staff that Instagram had before getting acquired. It's still run on a relatively small staff now.
It's about producing working code, not about how many hours my butt is in a seat...
My personal belief is that our industry tends towards less experienced workers because they put up with shit managers more and can be used to cover for their issues. It's anecodtal only, but I have never heard management decide that their deadlines we're improbable if not impossible when bugs get through. It's always just explained away with platitudes about code quality that suddenly dont matter when that requires more money or more time
I've worked at two places where my tech lead at least recognized that if scope or requirements changed then deadlines changed. Now I am at a place where agile is just a word thrown at any problem and now we have things like being asked to integrate third party tools that we don't receive until a week before the deadline. My team stayed till 2 am and was back in at 9am the next day and _literally no one_ saw a problem because it's "agile" and that's what you do when your agile
e: Actually I did Kanban too and that was OK, but that is a lot closer to the "no methodology" thing and anyway doesn't involve you making decisions like "oh, can't start working on that, because the sprint is almost over."
However, it is important to realize that you are not competing with the 20-somethings or the ones that are fresh out of college. You are competing with the ones that have already a good amount of experience (let's say 7-10 years) but are still in the beginning of their careers.
If they are minimally talented, they will probably produce code just as good as yours, yet they will probably (a) work for less money and (b) still be single and (c) more dedicated to work and (d) more tolerant of bullshit asks from the employer. Those are the ones that eventually fill positions as "Sr. Engineer" and crowd out the older ones.
The alternative is P&L and boy grey beards don't want P&L based measurements
1. Time
2. P&L
P&L measurement would destroy majority of the old timers unless the old timers work the same little money fresh out of college people do.
The thought is that a team of greyhairs never ships anything, and a team of youngsters ships garbage. But it's better to ship garbage than nothing, hence the bias.
My experience is that programmers who become "architects" and are only responsible for design and code review tend to go downhill in their skills. It SEEMS like an efficient way to use experienced people, but it is actually an anti-pattern. Their tendency is to develop ideas that sound good but don't work well in practice, and there is no direct way to correct the mistake. (Any time it doesn't work, the tendency is to blame the implementer. And there is usually enough to blame that their own contribution to the problem gets missed. You're less likely to miss the problem when YOU are trying to make the implementation work.)
In fact the problem is sufficiently bad that in interviews it is important to have people actually write code to show that they still can. When you get an "architect" who takes offense at the exercise, that's a non-hire. They might have been good 10 years ago, but they aren't worth hiring now.
This was something I'd sort of noticed, but didn't become conscious of until I worked at Google. There they were very conscious of the phenomena. Every programmer from the most junior to the most senior (for the record that would be Jeff Dean) writes code. If you're not willing to write code, you're not a hire.
That said, the exercise goes both ways. If I interview with an employer and I discover that they design things up front as UML diagrams, odds are that this won't be a workplace that I want much to do with. If I'm working in a job and they force me into an abstract architecture role like you describe, I'm going to quit and find a better job.
It's been surprising to me how much I've had to fight people on this issue in the past.
The thing is, software architecture kind of the same job as coding. So what the "architects" you describe really do is equivalent to writing code on a piece of paper. That is, doing one of the most mentally demanding jobs imaginable, but without the tooling to protect them from their own confusion. No surprise then, that it later turns out the architecture doesn't make sense. Without a tool like a compiler to call you on your bullshit, it's too easy to start engaging in fuzzy thinking, and the longer you're not exposed to such practical verification, the more your thoughts will become fuzzy.
1. All of you are overhead.
2. Customer is the profit.
3. Now how do I get (2) to be higher than (1) before we run out of money?
</three letter hat off>
Lots of companies are smart enough to figure out that it is cheaper to hire competent people than to accept the boneheaded mistakes that the cheapest warm body would make.
Besides, the ones that don't figure it out are no fun to work at. Who wants to be on the side that's bound to lose in the long run?
I just wish that they did less collateral damage on their way down.
This applies to everyone everywhere, and particularly positions that anyone with basic language and reasoning skills can fill (PMs, MBA types, etc)
No disagreement there. Just in my experience those jobs are either the first or second to go when things get tough - often because there's an MBA somewhere near the top who recognizes how replaceable all the rest are.
Aren't you being overly restrictive in scope here? Many executives are MBAs, but most MBAs are not executives.
Anecdotally, I know several full time top 10 grads who aren't exactly on the fast track to the c-suite, and I assume this is even more true for the broader pool of MBAs.
Us older folks won't build things we know doesn't work against synthetic deadlines, then work overtime to fix what we knew wasn't going to work in the first place, while taking the blame politically.
Engineering has in my lifetime become "unwinnable." I'm either not "a team player" or "being negative" for planning for reasonable failure scenarios. Then politically I still take the heat when they happen.
This is not a quixotic aspect of engineering, it is a design feature at bad employers. "Heads I win, tails you lose"
Also, that the product is 10% better/more stable/whatever frequently does not translate into even a 10% increase in sales. So it's not worth it (from the business' perspective) to invest in that quality. Pick some other arbitrary point (e.g. 20% better/20% boost in sales, etc.), right down to some threshold whereby the company simply doesn't even have a product that can be demonstrated.
Here is the core of the problem, and it's more of an incompatibility of goals than errors of one of the parties. Businesses want to make money. They usually don't give a flying fuck about what their product is or does beyond the point it gets sold. Does it waste users' time and piss them off? They paid us, which means they value it, so everything is ok.
Engineers, on the other hand, tend to care about what value the product actually provides to their users. So they would rather invest effort in making the product better for the users, instead of making it better for sales team to sell.
I don't really see the way out of this conflict. The engineers are right, but the businesses are right too - it's the business that pays and suffers (some of) the consequences, so it's the business that gets to tell engineers what to do, and not the other way around. If CEO is making a stupid decision, that's on CEO.
The way I see actually useful software gets done, it's outside or on the side of a business, not within it.
I'm not optimistic that this will happen. Anecdotally, I expound to acquaintances the risks of unprotected PII or questionably-secured home security apps, but convenience seems to outweigh such concerns.
Regulation is one approach to solve asymmetric information transactions. I don't see how that could be applied in general to software quality, but it could target the cases that have severe or widespread effects.
Keeping up with new technologies is essentially a proxy question for, "How much free time do you have that I might exploit later?"
It's quite common for things to generate or save money. Sadly, most engineers won't bother counting the results related to their work.
On other hand there tons of grey hairs who never shipped anything and are useless as new grads are.
Yup, this is the software industry boiled down to the basics.
but those aren't really the two alternatives, are they--ie, crap code or nothing?
it might be in the very short terim (ie, by this friday)
but over any other span of time, the choice is more like:
ship crap code in 30 day, followed by 50% of the team's resources spent bug fixing (which can often be cleverly disguised as new features) for the next 90 days
OR
ship high quality code in 45 days
That customer needs this code on the 1st, that is a hard and fast deadline! So shit is churned out, and handed over on the 1st. Then, three or four 1sts later, the customer finally gets their shit together and deploys it, and, voila, it is shit. And the cycle continues, as the scramble ensues to patch the shit by the 15th with yet more shit. And you end up like the little Dutch boy at the dike, except instead of fingers you're using hotfixes made of excrement.
This does not work. Your code monkeys will get demotivated fast and wont be able to learn anyway. The one architect guy will because increasingly out of touch and his code review will become pointless red tape fast.
> The thought is that a team of greyhairs never ships anything, and a team of youngsters ships garbage. But it's better to ship garbage than nothing, hence the bias.
Why would greyhairs never ships anything? I dont get it. My experience was that young people need more supervision to not get demotivated and to actually finish it. (on average)
I don't know what that really means though. People who are smart, hard working, and get the right jobs can get a senior title in 5-6 years at the big companies.
The shipped project is one branch of an extremely large tree of possibilities which a younger, less experienced programmer would have taken a very long time to explore and discard (which I know for certain because I was that programmer).
I'm consistently amazed at how much of a pain in the ass things tend to get when people try to build solutions in their early 20's, vs 30's and now in my 40's. Not to mention how much my viewpoint has changed in the past 20+ years in software.
I'm pretty happy when I can remove a bunch of dead/unused code trees, commented out swaths of crap, and refactor portions of a codebase into 1/5 the size.
There's plenty of shitty older devs. And if they're old enough they're a protected class which will make things very awkward if you hit a shitty one. And with the newer generations, there are plenty of 18 years old that will run circle against more experience devs, nevermind mid 20 ones. There's of course plenty of crappy ones too. So all things equal, but with a different salary, which one do you pick if you're a naive hiring manager?
Fortunately I now work for a company where this is a non-issue. While we definitely hire a ton of new grads, we'll never say no to older/more senior candidates (and sure could use more). Which is good, because I'm getting dangerously close to my 40s.
I propose that working code is necessary, but not sufficient.
I'm only being half snarky. Large chunks of these threads end up as people bashing young people for being idiots for various reasons.
I do believe that discrimination is an issue, but you also just don't need that many seniors. If you have a couple to make sure designs are reasonable, catch mistakes, and mentor the junior people then that seems pretty sufficient.
If you have 5 seniors and a junior you get stuff done, but the junior person quits because they don't see any point in sticking around on a team where they aren't being challenged because someone more senior always gets to do it. Someone else will give them the challenge they want. I'm moving on right now exactly because of this.
I'm primarily calling my designs shoddy when I had only a few years of experience.
If the timing of that bad hacky solution being shipped is critical, then it's actually the perfect solution and the right work was done quickly, which is great. If it's not, and is rather the first piece of a new feature intended to last for a while, then the work on that feature as a whole may be slow as a result, so then it looks more like bad and slow work.
I think with experience comes the ability to choose the appropriate approach for the problem at hand, whereas inexperience will usually lead to the short term quickest easiest route being chosen every time by default.
Another subtlety is that, typically, more experienced people will actually deliver the 'good' solution faster, which results in a double win if that is indeed the correct course of action.
If I want to end up with a great end result, I find this is the way I have to work.
I've spent far too much time around organisations where "more time with bums on seats" = "direct correlation to billing more", which = "better work" if you ask the right people. That leads to an unfortunately different scenario.
That was a fun bug to track down.
You're the second person. When was the last time you encountered anyone using KLOC's (per 1k lines of code) as a measurement of work done? Are they working on mainframe codebases?
The DOD and their "experts" love measuring software projects this way. They even take the cost/LOC ratio as a measure of value. I was once semi-seriously chastised for committing a change with net negative LOC because it broke the formula and implied negative value.
2) You can't be productive having 0 LOCs. So 0 LOCs = 0 productivity. n>0 LOCs = (presumable) some productivity. I would say we have a trend.
2) I know what you mean. I do it often myself and I know it improves code quality. It's not my intention to measure "work done" in LOCs, which, as you say, could be contradictory. I propose to measure the size of a project in LOCs. Suppose, you have two projects. And you have all the time you want to reduce their LOCs (to improve code). After you are done, both projects will still have some LOCs. My point is that the project, which has more LOCs, after you had your fun with it, is the "bigger"/more complicated project.
The added value a software engineer produces with his work in a single unit of time has a huge variance. Furthermore, it can range from negative to positive.
I.e, it does not matter how long one works. The only thing long work hours of a software engineer communicate is that they work long hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle
Crudely put, for project X you have three the following constraints. Cheap, On time, and good quality. You get to pick two of these three. It would seem to me most companies are opting for cheap, on time delivery and thus the quality is simply absent.
My bet is that it's about easy and hard to measure costs, and how our modern big government world insulates large companies from competition.
This is also why grey beards suck for P&L so they better want to work long hours.
Well, iOS11 needs to ship on its annual schedule, non-negotiable. And the SVP will really complain if I ask for more money this quarter. So, cheap it is.
If a bridge falls down, it's really obvious and people die. If billions of computers become vulnerable to malicious actors and a few hundred or thousand people suffer dramatic personal damages, well that's a nice and quiet problem which will be quickly forgotten in the 24-hour news cycle.