11 ms·

I have this silent debate with my engineers from time to time when one of them gets an itch they feel the need to scratch with an industrial strength back-scrat

I have this silent debate with my engineers from time to time when one of them gets an itch they feel the need to scratch with an industrial strength back-scratcher. I usually go "lawyer mode" and ask them question after question to justify their choices. They either forget their itch or realize that rubbing themselves against a wall will fix it. I understand their desire to put en vogue frameworks on their resume, but I can't have someone's flight of fancy fucking up our tech stack.

mirceal 8y ago
or maybe you discover that it's an industrial size itch and the chosen backscratcher is needed.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  You should optimize for the more likely scenario.
  - mirceal 8y ago
    there is a time for optimization and a time for learning.
- kradroy 8y ago
  Almost never. Often there's an aspiration to reach Google-level operation. Invariably some director/VP insists on building for that future. Then it turns out sales can't break into the market and adoption is low. Now you have a neglected minimum viable product because you're scaling that skeleton instead of adding features your existing customers want. Or you're delivering those features at a slow pace because you're integrating them into two versions of the software: the working one and the castle-in-the-sky one. Then there are all sorts of other things that throw a monkey wrench into your barely moving gears: new regulations, competitors nipping at your heels, pivots, demands from management for "transparency and visibility" into why it's taking you forever to deliver their desired magnum opus. Products that reach Google scale probably get there without even noticing it because they're correctly iterating for the marginal growth.
  - dudleypippin 8y ago
    I'm having flashbacks to when, at a startup in 2000, our CIO insisted we needed an EMC Storage Solution. "We're going to be _huge_!" (Over my written objections, mind you.) I spent precious time and huge amounts of money to build out the colo cages to fit his folly and then the company promptly went belly up. Good times.
  - mirceal 8y ago
    yes and no. there is a time for building and a time for learning. I actually encourage people to think how they would build something “google scale”. it’s not meant to be what pays the bills - but it can have dramatic effects on motivation, productivity and making the thing that pays the bills better. you see, once really smart people are free to dream they understand the cage they’re in better. timebox it and share what you’ve learned.
threeseed 8y ago
I actually think it's incredibly insulting when people assume that engineers are choosing frameworks just for their resume. Most in fact are looking to these tools e.g. React, Spark, Kafka etc because so many other engineers are using them with success. And so they think they will equally have success. But then they didn't have the context as to why those tools were chosen and so often they aren't suited. But I've never met anyone in the last 20+ years with thousands of engineers who was doing it for their resume. In fact the best thing for your resume is for the project to be a success anyway.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > I actually think it's incredibly insulting when people assume that engineers are choosing frameworks just for their resume. Maybe, or maybe it's just realistic in a world where common advice is not to stay at any company for more than 2 years.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    Mostly younger people are choosing to jump around jobs. The common advice and wisdom is actually not to do this.
    - braythwayt 8y ago
      The common advice and wisdom is actually not to do this. This is a long thread unto itself, but in an environment where many companies have zero loyalty to their employees and would rather hire more experienced people than train and promote their existing employees who already know the ins and outs of the company... Job hopping is often the fastest way to more money and more crucially, more responsibility which means more personal growth.
    - mrmuagi 8y ago
      The common advice and wisdom from what I've been hearing is that it's perfectly acceptable (especially if you are underpaid the market rate), but not to do it frequently or too fast. There was some evidence of within company promotions being poorer than just switching jobs.
rb808 8y ago
I used to agree with this, but then I started to look for a new job without knowing en-vogue frameworks. Now I make sure I include some fashionable tech, its important for people's careers.
vvanders 8y ago
Honestly this is why I have a homelab and side projects. If there's an interesting tech that I think may be applicable(or it's just interesting) I'll spin it up at home and give it a run. Keeps me sharp and gives me an opportunity to explore tech that isn't in my day-to-day wheelhouse.
dodobirdlord 8y ago
It's frankly bizarre to have a knee-jerk reaction that new technology is worse. New technology is probably better, given that it was created by people who had more context about both problems and solutions than was available when older technology was created. When I hear people talking about doing the same thing for 10 years I wonder what problem they are working on that could be so complex that in 10 years they have not managed lights-out automation for it. My suspicion is that attitudes like yours are not only wrong but also massively destructive of value.
- indigo945 8y ago
  Google's search engine is more than 10 years old, yet Google is still hiring engineers. Why is that? Should they not have managed lights-out automation for it? More importantly, the world changes and software has to change with it. An accounting system will need to be fitted to changing regulatory frameworks in the future. That knowledge is the basis of good application design. Schemaamnesia databases with highly-scalable vendor-locked PaaS peripherals that are constantly changing also require constant developer attention, but do not rise to that challenge.
- hartleybrody 8y ago
  I completely disagree. All new technology goes through a pruning phase for the first few years where people realize whether it's worthwhile or not. It's like natural selection, only the fittest survive. A technology that's been around for decades and is still considered a viable candidate will be much more reliable, documented, mature, bugfree... than some new library that is untested hasn't been worn smooth over time.
kamaal 8y ago
Bad news is pretty much anybody smart, and talented wants to work on new, exciting and bleeding edge stuff. If you are still running on Tomcat, all the best getting the market standard genius talent to work for you. You would also like to learn about what happens to workplaces where smart people don't work or even like to work at.

mirceal 8y ago

or maybe you discover that it's an industrial size itch and the chosen backscratcher is needed.

toasterlovin 8y ago
You should optimize for the more likely scenario.
- mirceal 8y ago
  there is a time for optimization and a time for learning.
kradroy 8y ago
Almost never. Often there's an aspiration to reach Google-level operation. Invariably some director/VP insists on building for that future. Then it turns out sales can't break into the market and adoption is low. Now you have a neglected minimum viable product because you're scaling that skeleton instead of adding features your existing customers want. Or you're delivering those features at a slow pace because you're integrating them into two versions of the software: the working one and the castle-in-the-sky one. Then there are all sorts of other things that throw a monkey wrench into your barely moving gears: new regulations, competitors nipping at your heels, pivots, demands from management for "transparency and visibility" into why it's taking you forever to deliver their desired magnum opus. Products that reach Google scale probably get there without even noticing it because they're correctly iterating for the marginal growth.
- dudleypippin 8y ago
  I'm having flashbacks to when, at a startup in 2000, our CIO insisted we needed an EMC Storage Solution. "We're going to be _huge_!" (Over my written objections, mind you.) I spent precious time and huge amounts of money to build out the colo cages to fit his folly and then the company promptly went belly up. Good times.
- mirceal 8y ago
  yes and no. there is a time for building and a time for learning. I actually encourage people to think how they would build something “google scale”. it’s not meant to be what pays the bills - but it can have dramatic effects on motivation, productivity and making the thing that pays the bills better. you see, once really smart people are free to dream they understand the cage they’re in better. timebox it and share what you’ve learned.

threeseed 8y ago

I actually think it's incredibly insulting when people assume that engineers are choosing frameworks just for their resume. Most in fact are looking to these tools e.g. React, Spark, Kafka etc because so many other engineers are using them with success. And so they think they will equally have success. But then they didn't have the context as to why those tools were chosen and so often they aren't suited. But I've never met anyone in the last 20+ years with thousands of engineers who was doing it for their resume. In fact the best thing for your resume is for the project to be a success anyway.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
> I actually think it's incredibly insulting when people assume that engineers are choosing frameworks just for their resume. Maybe, or maybe it's just realistic in a world where common advice is not to stay at any company for more than 2 years.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Mostly younger people are choosing to jump around jobs. The common advice and wisdom is actually not to do this.
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    The common advice and wisdom is actually not to do this. This is a long thread unto itself, but in an environment where many companies have zero loyalty to their employees and would rather hire more experienced people than train and promote their existing employees who already know the ins and outs of the company... Job hopping is often the fastest way to more money and more crucially, more responsibility which means more personal growth.
  - mrmuagi 8y ago
    The common advice and wisdom from what I've been hearing is that it's perfectly acceptable (especially if you are underpaid the market rate), but not to do it frequently or too fast. There was some evidence of within company promotions being poorer than just switching jobs.

rb808 8y ago

I used to agree with this, but then I started to look for a new job without knowing en-vogue frameworks. Now I make sure I include some fashionable tech, its important for people's careers.

vvanders 8y ago

Honestly this is why I have a homelab and side projects. If there's an interesting tech that I think may be applicable(or it's just interesting) I'll spin it up at home and give it a run. Keeps me sharp and gives me an opportunity to explore tech that isn't in my day-to-day wheelhouse.

dodobirdlord 8y ago

It's frankly bizarre to have a knee-jerk reaction that new technology is worse. New technology is probably better, given that it was created by people who had more context about both problems and solutions than was available when older technology was created. When I hear people talking about doing the same thing for 10 years I wonder what problem they are working on that could be so complex that in 10 years they have not managed lights-out automation for it. My suspicion is that attitudes like yours are not only wrong but also massively destructive of value.

indigo945 8y ago
Google's search engine is more than 10 years old, yet Google is still hiring engineers. Why is that? Should they not have managed lights-out automation for it? More importantly, the world changes and software has to change with it. An accounting system will need to be fitted to changing regulatory frameworks in the future. That knowledge is the basis of good application design. Schemaamnesia databases with highly-scalable vendor-locked PaaS peripherals that are constantly changing also require constant developer attention, but do not rise to that challenge.
hartleybrody 8y ago
I completely disagree. All new technology goes through a pruning phase for the first few years where people realize whether it's worthwhile or not. It's like natural selection, only the fittest survive. A technology that's been around for decades and is still considered a viable candidate will be much more reliable, documented, mature, bugfree... than some new library that is untested hasn't been worn smooth over time.

kamaal 8y ago

Bad news is pretty much anybody smart, and talented wants to work on new, exciting and bleeding edge stuff. If you are still running on Tomcat, all the best getting the market standard genius talent to work for you. You would also like to learn about what happens to workplaces where smart people don't work or even like to work at.