3 ms·
The thing that is missed with this argument is that tech just enables the business. If a company is boasting constantly about how it moved from X to Y, they ei
by KaiserPro 7y ago
The thing that is missed with this argument is that tech just enables the business.
If a company is boasting constantly about how it moved from X to Y, they either have too much money, or none at all. If they have the luxury of re-writing a core business system every 6 months, we can glean two things:
1) they have terrible leadership
2) their teams can't agree to support each other.
One thing that is really dangerous, is thinking that shipping _any_ code, is better than shipping the _right_ code. Its very simple to think that your teams are being productive, if the only measure is shipping code.
It soon becomes a circle of deploy-refactor-rearchtect-urghLegacy. You feel productive because you are constantly creating new and tools. But they are to do pretty much the same thing, but on a different platform.
You are correct to observe that having a "boring" stack requires lots of hard work. It also moves against the current "dump anything into prod, because, docker". Like a news paper, it requires planning, editing and a style guide, with enforcers and gate keepers.
- tamrix 7y agoIn my resume I used to list a bunch of technologies. These days I write the outcome of my projects. Eg 'My team increased customer retention by 3%'. Technology is a tool to solve a problem and all problems are people problems. Ultimately, you need to have a balance between tech and talk as that's the job to translate the two. Lean too far on the talk and you end up in management, to far on the tech and you're writing software no one wants.