3 ms·

It's usually a combination of a competent but misguided senior engineer and a fleet of buisiness dudes who aren't qualified to assess whether the engineers work

by s_kilk 10y ago

It's usually a combination of a competent but misguided senior engineer and a fleet of buisiness dudes who aren't qualified to assess whether the engineers work is actually any good. He'll seem to weave magic initially, and the company/project will launch and make money for the people involved. It's only later, when other engineers show up, that the extent of the horror becomes evident, by which point the senior engineer has already been enshrined as the "genius" behind the companies success. Only the new, junior engineers can see the Emperors clothes for what they are.

jerf 10y ago
"It's usually a combination of a competent but misguided senior engineer" Quibble: Anyone who comes up with and deploys that sort of system is not competent. They may be "senior", chronologically anyhow, but they are not "competent". Compenent senior engineers know about the inner-platform effect. Similarly, to me making avoid a second reply, it's not just lack of communication that makes this system bad. The inner-platform antipattern is objectively bad, no matter how it is communicated.
- s_kilk 10y ago
  We could change "competent" to "capable", which may better capture the spirit of the argument :) The point is, this engineer, for all they're many, glaring faults, can get stuff done. Impressive stuff, even. And that's all the business dudes see in this scenario; Dave plugging away at a computer and cheques from customers showing up in the mail every month.
  - jerf 10y ago
    Fair enough. Such systems do require an impressive amount of capable labor to make work at all. Labor to staggeringly negative effect, but yes, capable labor. One could do wonders with such an engineer if you can mentor them... and if they'll take a mentoring.
    - s_kilk 10y ago
      > ...if you can mentor them... and if they'll take a mentoring. I suspect these "genius" programmers are damaged beyond all hope :)

by s_kilk 10y ago

jerf 10y ago

"It's usually a combination of a competent but misguided senior engineer" Quibble: Anyone who comes up with and deploys that sort of system is not competent. They may be "senior", chronologically anyhow, but they are not "competent". Compenent senior engineers know about the inner-platform effect. Similarly, to me making avoid a second reply, it's not just lack of communication that makes this system bad. The inner-platform antipattern is objectively bad, no matter how it is communicated.

s_kilk 10y ago
We could change "competent" to "capable", which may better capture the spirit of the argument :) The point is, this engineer, for all they're many, glaring faults, can get stuff done. Impressive stuff, even. And that's all the business dudes see in this scenario; Dave plugging away at a computer and cheques from customers showing up in the mail every month.
- jerf 10y ago
  Fair enough. Such systems do require an impressive amount of capable labor to make work at all. Labor to staggeringly negative effect, but yes, capable labor. One could do wonders with such an engineer if you can mentor them... and if they'll take a mentoring.
  - s_kilk 10y ago
    > ...if you can mentor them... and if they'll take a mentoring. I suspect these "genius" programmers are damaged beyond all hope :)