4 ms·

I'm calling bs on this. You have to keep the train moving. That keeps the cash coming in. You can't stop the train. So, you have to take what you have and som

by auxbuss 16y ago

I'm calling bs on this. You have to keep the train moving. That keeps the cash coming in. You can't stop the train. So, you have to take what you have and somehow -- that's what you are being paid for and hopefully you have the chops -- manoeuvre the beast into a better state. This is fscking hard, especially when you have to get the darn thing under test. And it's invariably massively undervalued by most biz management teams. You can _always_ extract value from operative but shitty code, even if you have to stick your head around the U-bend and pull it back with your teeth. If you don't know that yet, then you've more to learn.

imajes 16y ago
I don't know. When you're trying to build a team in a market where there are more jobs than qualified applicants, telling them that you have to 'rescue' an app is a turn off and won't get you anywhere. Also, when the real value within the app is a simple product, breaking it out and re-engineering based on what you've learnt takes about roughly the same time as it does to walk through the code line-by-line and add in valuable tests. Refactoring legacy code by multiple vendors is always a risky proposition (and much much harder to sell to clients who want a deadline for delivery).
variety 16y ago
"rewriting systems" != "stopping the train" (if done properly).
fdagggee 16y ago
There are lots of reasons that technological assets can be very poorly aligned with a company's current goals. In those situations, a redesign is often warranted. I've often seen it occur as a confluence of: bad hires, poorly managed projects, companies that change direction, and availability of better solutions to the same problems. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it's the best use of resources. CTOs are responsible for making intelligent fix/replace decisions, and it really doesn't sound like you're advocating that at all. Rather, it sounds like you're advocating an ignorant 'only fix' position.
j_baker 16y ago
Personally, I see the CTO's job as being the one to advocate pristine, perfect code at the expense of business objectives. The reason is simple: if they don't, nobody else will. Of course the business side of the organization is always going to be pushing for more features at the expense of code quality. Why? Well, they're not the ones who will take the blame for code sucking. If you give in to them too many times and end up with buggy code where trivial changes take a month, but has all the features that are needed where do you think the blame will fall? I can guarantee you it isn't going to be the business side. The goal shouldn't be for the CTO to be the business side's technical henchman. It should be to look after the technical side of things. If a rewrite is the best decision technically (without considering the business), then that's what the CTO should advocate, but they need to be willing to work with the business side to find a solution that works for both sides.
- babar 16y ago
  The CTO needs to be part of the executive team, so they don't have the luxury of ignoring the business objectives. The CTO should be able to make a business case for investing in quality engineering. Quality engineering has benefits for the business, but they are not always worth the price. Engineers are the only ones who can advocate for pristine code without tradeoffs, and I would argue that great engineers care enough about the business to not do that. Really great engineers just build the pristine code in the same amount of time regular engineers would have taken to get a simple version almost-working. I actually like the idea of "technical henchman", though!
  - alttab 16y ago
    Really great engineers just build the pristine code in the same amount of time regular engineers would have taken to get a simple version almost-working. This has been key in my experience. I'll build a feature that is flexible, clean, well factored, and completely documented in the same time it requires someone else to make a half working mess. CTO's as I'd like to understand them bring the bar as high as they can within business constraints. Doing any less is accepting mediocrity. Is that something you'd want in an executive leadership role?
sz 16y ago
Sure you can extract _some_ value but is the tradeoff always worth it? Look at Windows Phone 7.

by auxbuss 16y ago

imajes 16y ago

I don't know. When you're trying to build a team in a market where there are more jobs than qualified applicants, telling them that you have to 'rescue' an app is a turn off and won't get you anywhere. Also, when the real value within the app is a simple product, breaking it out and re-engineering based on what you've learnt takes about roughly the same time as it does to walk through the code line-by-line and add in valuable tests. Refactoring legacy code by multiple vendors is always a risky proposition (and much much harder to sell to clients who want a deadline for delivery).

variety 16y ago

"rewriting systems" != "stopping the train" (if done properly).

fdagggee 16y ago

There are lots of reasons that technological assets can be very poorly aligned with a company's current goals. In those situations, a redesign is often warranted. I've often seen it occur as a confluence of: bad hires, poorly managed projects, companies that change direction, and availability of better solutions to the same problems. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it's the best use of resources. CTOs are responsible for making intelligent fix/replace decisions, and it really doesn't sound like you're advocating that at all. Rather, it sounds like you're advocating an ignorant 'only fix' position.

j_baker 16y ago

Personally, I see the CTO's job as being the one to advocate pristine, perfect code at the expense of business objectives. The reason is simple: if they don't, nobody else will. Of course the business side of the organization is always going to be pushing for more features at the expense of code quality. Why? Well, they're not the ones who will take the blame for code sucking. If you give in to them too many times and end up with buggy code where trivial changes take a month, but has all the features that are needed where do you think the blame will fall? I can guarantee you it isn't going to be the business side. The goal shouldn't be for the CTO to be the business side's technical henchman. It should be to look after the technical side of things. If a rewrite is the best decision technically (without considering the business), then that's what the CTO should advocate, but they need to be willing to work with the business side to find a solution that works for both sides.

babar 16y ago
The CTO needs to be part of the executive team, so they don't have the luxury of ignoring the business objectives. The CTO should be able to make a business case for investing in quality engineering. Quality engineering has benefits for the business, but they are not always worth the price. Engineers are the only ones who can advocate for pristine code without tradeoffs, and I would argue that great engineers care enough about the business to not do that. Really great engineers just build the pristine code in the same amount of time regular engineers would have taken to get a simple version almost-working. I actually like the idea of "technical henchman", though!
- alttab 16y ago
  Really great engineers just build the pristine code in the same amount of time regular engineers would have taken to get a simple version almost-working. This has been key in my experience. I'll build a feature that is flexible, clean, well factored, and completely documented in the same time it requires someone else to make a half working mess. CTO's as I'd like to understand them bring the bar as high as they can within business constraints. Doing any less is accepting mediocrity. Is that something you'd want in an executive leadership role?

sz 16y ago

Sure you can extract _some_ value but is the tradeoff always worth it? Look at Windows Phone 7.