3 ms·
Did anyone else notice that there is no software engineering management involved in the "ideal" picture? In this ideology, every developer acts autonomously, ev
by choeger 6y ago
Did anyone else notice that there is no software engineering management involved in the "ideal" picture? In this ideology, every developer acts autonomously, even by deploying to production. This removed all technical responsibilities from the well-payed management people. Conflicts? Resource management? Scheduling? Happens to other people. At the core of this ideology lies the principle that every software is just a bag of fully orthogonal features that can be implemented completely independent of each other and will play nicely together. If this assumption does not hold, it's the developer's fault (aka "ownership").
Dear developer colleagues, do not fall for this trap. Hold your managers responsible. Let them make the difficult decisions. Real leadership should lift some burden from the people being lead.
- UK-Al05 6y agoI'm presuming in this ideal land, the stories are already ordered in the most optimal way. So no scheduling conflict. Resource and release conflicts don't appear if you have the right infrastructure.
- choeger 6y agoAre you serious? The "right" infrastructure? Are you limiting your view to a single service, running on a big cluster? Because even then there are permanent conflicts in the persistence layer and resource conflicts express themselves in huge infrastructure bills. But things get really messy when your software is distributed in heterogeneous environments. Say you ship a database yourselves. Or a multi-platform app, or a game, or the control software for medical devices, or... Software development is not just running the next SaaS product.
- UK-Al05 6y agoGive me some concrete examples. Higher infrastructure bills for spinning up new hardware is often cheaper than fixing resource conflicts
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]