4 ms·

I've seen the reverse happen at some companies. Managers getting taken advantage of by allowing people to do anything in the name of 'technical debt' 'code qua

I've seen the reverse happen at some companies. Managers getting taken advantage of by allowing people to do anything in the name of 'technical debt' 'code quality', resulting in more bugs, lots of needless refactoring, tons of layers of abstraction and tests that actually do close to nothing. Result is they are then surprised it takes a long time to develop new features where competitors do it faster and eat their lunch. There needs to be some sort of balance, companies need to make money to allow for proper code to be developed, second is also valuable as long as it makes sense financially as well.

watwut 6y ago
> allowing people to do anything in the name of 'technical debt' 'code quality', resulting in more bugs, lots of needless refactoring, tons of layers of abstraction and tests that actually do close to nothing. This heavily points to dysfunctional development team with fault being primary on tech leads making more and more mess the more they code. > companies need to make money to allow for proper code to be developed, second is also valuable as long as it makes sense financially as well. This one is merely about putting less resources on development. I don't think it fixes the dysfunctional team above, it is just avoid the issues. There is nothing that would make developers write useful tests. Nothing that would change tech leads, nothing that would prevent unmaintainable code appearing again. Had the constantly refactoring team ended with very good code for too much of price, then cutting resources is likely to lead to better trade off. But that is not their case, their case is that they don't know how to write good code.
- adriancr 6y ago
  > This heavily points to dysfunctional development team with fault being primary on tech leads making more and more mess the more they code. You are correct. > I don't think it fixes the dysfunctional team above, it is just avoid the issues. Sometimes avoiding the issues is good. My point is that some developers cry wolf too often, focusing them on solving problems and shipping features may yield better results.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

watwut 6y ago

> allowing people to do anything in the name of 'technical debt' 'code quality', resulting in more bugs, lots of needless refactoring, tons of layers of abstraction and tests that actually do close to nothing. This heavily points to dysfunctional development team with fault being primary on tech leads making more and more mess the more they code. > companies need to make money to allow for proper code to be developed, second is also valuable as long as it makes sense financially as well. This one is merely about putting less resources on development. I don't think it fixes the dysfunctional team above, it is just avoid the issues. There is nothing that would make developers write useful tests. Nothing that would change tech leads, nothing that would prevent unmaintainable code appearing again. Had the constantly refactoring team ended with very good code for too much of price, then cutting resources is likely to lead to better trade off. But that is not their case, their case is that they don't know how to write good code.

adriancr 6y ago
> This heavily points to dysfunctional development team with fault being primary on tech leads making more and more mess the more they code. You are correct. > I don't think it fixes the dysfunctional team above, it is just avoid the issues. Sometimes avoiding the issues is good. My point is that some developers cry wolf too often, focusing them on solving problems and shipping features may yield better results.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]