3 ms·
Overall, the sentiment is right, but this line seems off: >Note, he was a software engineer, not QA or a network engineer. But he didn’t let the role definitio
by kd5bjo 7y ago
Overall, the sentiment is right, but this line seems off:
>Note, he was a software engineer, not QA or a network engineer. But he didn’t let the role definition stop him.
QA is about determining when things are broken, which they weren’t (yet). Network engineering is about making sure all of the packets get to to where they’re supposed to go, and not what’s inside them.
This is about a private protocol between two pieces of software that are both exclusively developed by the same company, and probably the same team; its details fall quite squarely in the purview of software engineering, or at least they would at every company I’ve ever worked for.
- mooreds 7y agoI wrote this piece. Thanks for the feedback. The point is that he was was a software developer who was responsible for the back end systems. I don't think he was directly responsible for the client/server protocol and the client was, I believe, outside his purview. I was trying to think of a couple of different roles that might have had incentive to take care of this. (QA because of a desire to ensure the software was working correctly, network engineering because they might have helped design the protocol.) But he saw a knowledge hole and he acted to remedy it. But I take your point that the line is a bit off. I'll edit.