Re:A URL Lengthener
by lostcolony on Friday May 14, 2021 @04:07PM
(#27159120)
I've been there too, and I know. I'm not speaking to the choices devs make (rock and hard place, as you say), but the choices the org makes. For government work is driven by Congress' procurement process, but for enterprise is entirely on upper leadership's perceived need to avoid risk. Which is ironically hilarious, since such approaches guarantee higher risk, in that they pretty much universally lead to late delivery of broken features.
Enterprise developer here. Exactly this. If you reject the spec, you won't get another one before the deadline that was committed before you got the spec you want to reject.
Instead of implementing the obvious intention of the spec and waiting to see if anyone complains?
Re:A URL Lengthener
by lostcolony on Saturday May 15, 2021 @12:18AM
(#27162323)
The intention usually isn't obvious. The stakeholders have spent so much time documenting, in depth, the solution that they want, while spending no real time documenting or communicating the specifics intricacies of the -problem-.
That's the issue in a nutshell; Checkbox Driven Development implies "if we just define the solution well enough upfront, we'll get what we need!" instead of "if we define the problem well enough, and let dev pitch us solutions, and iterate as we go, we'll get what we need". Which implies that the devs are not to be trusted to come up with a solution themselves.
To deviate from expectations and be congratulated, you have to, A. Be certain you're doing the right thing, and B. Have an audience that can recognize you did the right thing. Both of those require a level of trust that is just missing in this sort of org.
So after a few iterations you just say "fuck it" and implement it as specified and then hope that you get a chance to fix it before shipping it (or that it doesn't become your headache later on...).