3 ms·

> In-house improvements. There's a need for a change of tech stack in the company, of which the author of this article isn't aware. The developer did a project

> In-house improvements. There's a need for a change of tech stack in the company, of which the author of this article isn't aware. The developer did a project in new technology as a part of moving in this direction. Certainly something that would probably get messaged at all levels of the company, not something you surprise drop on the rest of your coworkers and pull them kicking and screaming towards.

marcosdumay 5y ago
You mean, it's something for management to decide, and the technical staff has no role on learning the costs and benefits of each option? If a developer could create it alone, without anybody noticing, the company can replace it again if they learn it's not a good technology.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  it sounds like the developer is in a team of developers. If someone else on the team wants to shake up literally everything with no consultation with the rest of the team on whether or not it's a good idea, now everyone else is getting dragged along for the ride without much consent, because now it has to be maintained and kept up to date. And it may not even be a good idea; individual developers are not infallible.
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    > literally everything A service, isolated from the rest of the code, fully written in a week by a programmer without experience on the language. If that shakes literally everything, your place has a problem. And it's the kind of problem a single developer or small skunkworks team can help you move out of, if they are given some freedom to experiment with architecture and settle on some good guidelines.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      someone learning a language on their off time does not mean that everyone else has the off time to do a language. presumably the one engineer won't be the only person touching it, and they'll have vacations and days off where someone else will need to assist, and they'll probably leave the company at some point (especially if it's in service of CV polishing). now everyone has to learn the special new language if the new service is supposed to be a productionized thing. the least you could do is ask the rest of your team first. what's so contentious about working with your coworkers?
      - marcosdumay 5y ago
        Talking to the rest of the team is a good advice. Traveling the hierarchy up and then down expecting for permission is not. Managers don't have a clue on what you are set up to learn. That's not their job. If you have an environment problem, anybody more than 1 level up from you will at best ignore it.
        bobthepanda 5y ago
        The entire point of my first comment was in response to this: > There's a need for a change of tech stack in the company If your company is changing entire tech direction, managers should at least be made aware because they will need to plan for time. If this is being run Rambo-style by a few devs going guns blazing for the rest of the company, it's a serious problem, not least because the change in direction might be misguided without a big picture. > Talking to the rest of the team is a good advice. Traveling the hierarchy up and then down expecting for permission is not. You seem to be arguing against a strawman.
        marcosdumay 5y ago
        Nobody can be sure there's a need if they don't get to know a better stack. Before management can plan some migration, the technical people must know what else exists and how well it can be used on your environment. After your people run a few replaceable experiments, they can reach management and inform them of the costs and benefits of each choice, but going to management with "our stack sucks, we don't know how to improve it" is guaranteed to lead to a bad outcome, and defending a plan that you don't know how well it will work has a very high chance to turn out bad.

marcosdumay 5y ago

You mean, it's something for management to decide, and the technical staff has no role on learning the costs and benefits of each option? If a developer could create it alone, without anybody noticing, the company can replace it again if they learn it's not a good technology.

bobthepanda 5y ago
it sounds like the developer is in a team of developers. If someone else on the team wants to shake up literally everything with no consultation with the rest of the team on whether or not it's a good idea, now everyone else is getting dragged along for the ride without much consent, because now it has to be maintained and kept up to date. And it may not even be a good idea; individual developers are not infallible.
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  > literally everything A service, isolated from the rest of the code, fully written in a week by a programmer without experience on the language. If that shakes literally everything, your place has a problem. And it's the kind of problem a single developer or small skunkworks team can help you move out of, if they are given some freedom to experiment with architecture and settle on some good guidelines.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    someone learning a language on their off time does not mean that everyone else has the off time to do a language. presumably the one engineer won't be the only person touching it, and they'll have vacations and days off where someone else will need to assist, and they'll probably leave the company at some point (especially if it's in service of CV polishing). now everyone has to learn the special new language if the new service is supposed to be a productionized thing. the least you could do is ask the rest of your team first. what's so contentious about working with your coworkers?
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      Talking to the rest of the team is a good advice. Traveling the hierarchy up and then down expecting for permission is not. Managers don't have a clue on what you are set up to learn. That's not their job. If you have an environment problem, anybody more than 1 level up from you will at best ignore it.
      - bobthepanda 5y ago
        The entire point of my first comment was in response to this: > There's a need for a change of tech stack in the company If your company is changing entire tech direction, managers should at least be made aware because they will need to plan for time. If this is being run Rambo-style by a few devs going guns blazing for the rest of the company, it's a serious problem, not least because the change in direction might be misguided without a big picture. > Talking to the rest of the team is a good advice. Traveling the hierarchy up and then down expecting for permission is not. You seem to be arguing against a strawman.
        marcosdumay 5y ago
        Nobody can be sure there's a need if they don't get to know a better stack. Before management can plan some migration, the technical people must know what else exists and how well it can be used on your environment. After your people run a few replaceable experiments, they can reach management and inform them of the costs and benefits of each choice, but going to management with "our stack sucks, we don't know how to improve it" is guaranteed to lead to a bad outcome, and defending a plan that you don't know how well it will work has a very high chance to turn out bad.