4 ms·

I find that pretty interesting, and quite the opposite of my experience. I'm guessing that it has to do with the size of the boring corporation. I worked for a

I find that pretty interesting, and quite the opposite of my experience. I'm guessing that it has to do with the size of the boring corporation. I worked for a mega corp, and redtape and layers upon layers of bureaucracy would pretty much make any project take months instead of a day. Additionally, there were plenty of times where the right arm was working on something and the left arm didn't know about it, so it was also working on the same thing. Finally, the customers didn't really know what they wanted, the databases weren't designed properly by a solid DBA, and really good system architects weren't brought on early in the design, which resulted in an extremely poor working applications. All-in-all, it was definitely soul-crushing, and I personally have no desire to do it again. YMMV.

Periodic 15y ago
I'll add in that I expect 90% of enterprise programming is maintaining someone else's code. It isn't making small CRUD apps, it isn't innovating, it isn't bringing costs down, it isn't bringing profits up. It is simply maintaining the behemoth they spent a fortune on N years ago which was over-, under- and poorly designed all at the same time. It is just keeping it working well enough that it can continue being used because as long as it is working there's no reason to rewrite it. The words "rewrite" to an executive mean, "do a lot of work and spend a lot of money to make something we already have." And there will have been non-FizzBuzz programmers working on that project before you.