4 ms·

I'm certainly in the defensively argumentative crowd. Eventually, as someone who likes doing this work, a single/series ends up being a massive albatross on the

I'm certainly in the defensively argumentative crowd. Eventually, as someone who likes doing this work, a single/series ends up being a massive albatross on the team until the project dies or someone steps up. That's often me, because I don't want to be miserable. Sometimes the choices are so monumentally bad, there is no way to fix it. It's just a miserable death march.

pdimitar 4y ago
Yeah, I am very much the same (if I read you correctly): I get it that maintenance is more important than "devs playing with new shiny toys" -- a saying over which I slammed a manager in a high-level meeting and I didn't flinch doing it; I'd do it again! -- BUT sometimes it's painfully obvious, usually months later, that using tech X or Y just makes it that much harder to maintain the software. There are points at which difficult decisions have to be made. It's a shame most managers / CTOs / VPs of engineering are so cowardly and idolize not being spotted by upper management for having a few hiccups in their projects, over any other concerns. I have no patience for their political in-fighting in companies so I usually arrive at a contract, beat a bunch of things into shape, reduce test failures, simplify deployment, introduce a few conventions (and document them) that make it easy to change code, make 1-2 high profile and very requested features and then usually end up leaving 6-9 months in -- simply because I start getting included in the political games. At that point I am like "hell no" and just move on.