4 ms·

Also wouldn't most devs much rather fix bugs in an existing app than add features? Piling more chairs on top of each other to get features out the door can be

Also wouldn't most devs much rather fix bugs in an existing app than add features? Piling more chairs on top of each other to get features out the door can be demoralizing. You know it's going to collapse under its weight eventually, and you're just speeding the company along to The Big Expensive Rewrite. But fixing bugs? An actual chance to make things better? That is satisfying.

emodendroket 4y ago
> Also wouldn't most devs much rather fix bugs in an existing app than add features? No, for a few reasons: 1) it's often tedious work 2) often the bug has been around a long time and nobody's really noticed or cared, so how important could it be? 3) organizations rarely reward this work.
- bruce511 4y ago
  I quite like fixing bugs. It's a different mental challenge to truly understand what is going wrong, often something that's really subtle. While individual fixes are often unnoticed, the overall effect is profound. Users are happier, support staff are more confident, and programmers are able to build the next layer on a firm foundation. I agree bug fixing my code is more enjoyable to bug fixing other people's code, and I agree that most programmers resist the former and hate the latter. But for me, bug-fixing foreign code, is one of the truest tests of skill.
  - squeaky-clean 4y ago
    I love bug-fixing other people's code for some reason. I often get nerd-sniped by another team in our slack talking about some bug they've encountered in their project(s). I kind of wish that could be my full-time job. I suppose that's what some fields of consulting are.
- OJFord 4y ago
  It's only tedious work if what you enjoy is cranking out another CRUD feature. Personally I prefer the thinking, reasoning, tracking down, supposed 'tedium' that comes with bug fixing.
- nitwit005 4y ago
  At essentially every company I've worked at the devs were asking for more time to fix bugs, improve performance, etc. Sure, bugs are boring, but most of the time the new features aren't terribly exciting either.
pmontra 4y ago
Developers have managers that tell them what to do. Developers can at most decide whether to accept a job in a maintenance or in a development team. Sometimes they just accept the first decent job, especially the first one out of school. And managers care about their career and the size of their team is a proxy for their degree of success. If a company has 100 developers to create new software and 10 to bug fix, they want to be in the development team. If it's 100 to bug fix and 10 to build, it's the other way around.
- NordSteve 4y ago
  The fallacy here is that it’s somehow necessary to divide into feature and bug fixing teams.
  - pmontra 4y ago
    It's not necessary but I saw big companies with different budgets for development, (manual) testing, maintenance, operations. The team for testing is definitely separated from the development one, different managers, goals, etc. Operations more like so. Maintenance and bug fixing could be done by the same people but there is always tension at management level about whether to prioritize new features or fix problems. There are different internal customers behind those requests and turf wars are fought every now and then. Different teams and different budgets solve part of that problem but of course the fixes of some bugs can become new features on their own and more turf wars follow.
papito 4y ago
It depends. A lot of devs, from my observations, take no satisfaction in the "last 10%". They stay for a project during the fun, risk-free green field development phase and then peace out. These engineers never really learn from their own mistakes or the mistakes of others. They just jump from one startup to another. "What we need here is another microservice!"
enraged_camel 4y ago
>> But fixing bugs? An actual chance to make things better? That is satisfying. I don't think fixing bugs is the only satisfying thing. Sometimes, the need for new features arises only after users use your product for some time. For example, PriceTable lets users generate professional-looking estimates quickly. After about a year of using our product, some customers said, "we use it everyday and have sent thousands of estimates to our clients. Is there a way to run reports to gain sales analytics insights?" So we added that feature too. And I found it satisfying. :)
alkonaut 4y ago
Haven’t met a single developer who doesn’t prefer feature development to bug fixing.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Nice to meet you. I enjoy nothing more than figuring out a really tricky bug. I like the puzzle.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    I also enjoy the detective work, especially for performance issues. I find I don’t like actually addressing the problems once I solve the mystery, however…
- OJFord 4y ago
  (Assuming you do this professionally) that doesn't sound great for the make up of your team. I think I like bug fixing/performance fixing/'design' (as in db, infrastructure, code structure, refactoring - not UI) most. I don't mind new feature work, mainly because it typically involves some if the latter I suppose. I really don't like total greenfield work though, where you have to faff about with all the initial config of stuff (which assuming you don't start a new project every day you haven't done for ages) - especially anything to do with JS where you also have to work out how to do it without their 'helpful' cli tool, or how to combine a slightly different 19 tools & frameworks than the example you found.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Does this count as meeting? :)
scarface74 4y ago
Definitely not true. From a career optimization standpoint , every single major tech company’s leveling guideline that I’ve seen (including mine) has a criteria of “scope” and “impact”. No one ever got promoted for fixing bugs. Even when it’s time for your next job, you can’t very well put on your resume “I fixed bugs for a year” and expect to standout. Then there is answering behavioral questions at the interview where you have to talk about accomplishments. On the other hand, I can’t pretend to know what most developers on the enterprise dev side go through at interviews. Even though that’s where I worked most of my career until 2020, I targeted small companies who were looking for “adult supervision”.

emodendroket 4y ago

> Also wouldn't most devs much rather fix bugs in an existing app than add features? No, for a few reasons: 1) it's often tedious work 2) often the bug has been around a long time and nobody's really noticed or cared, so how important could it be? 3) organizations rarely reward this work.

bruce511 4y ago
I quite like fixing bugs. It's a different mental challenge to truly understand what is going wrong, often something that's really subtle. While individual fixes are often unnoticed, the overall effect is profound. Users are happier, support staff are more confident, and programmers are able to build the next layer on a firm foundation. I agree bug fixing my code is more enjoyable to bug fixing other people's code, and I agree that most programmers resist the former and hate the latter. But for me, bug-fixing foreign code, is one of the truest tests of skill.
- squeaky-clean 4y ago
  I love bug-fixing other people's code for some reason. I often get nerd-sniped by another team in our slack talking about some bug they've encountered in their project(s). I kind of wish that could be my full-time job. I suppose that's what some fields of consulting are.
OJFord 4y ago
It's only tedious work if what you enjoy is cranking out another CRUD feature. Personally I prefer the thinking, reasoning, tracking down, supposed 'tedium' that comes with bug fixing.
nitwit005 4y ago
At essentially every company I've worked at the devs were asking for more time to fix bugs, improve performance, etc. Sure, bugs are boring, but most of the time the new features aren't terribly exciting either.

pmontra 4y ago

Developers have managers that tell them what to do. Developers can at most decide whether to accept a job in a maintenance or in a development team. Sometimes they just accept the first decent job, especially the first one out of school. And managers care about their career and the size of their team is a proxy for their degree of success. If a company has 100 developers to create new software and 10 to bug fix, they want to be in the development team. If it's 100 to bug fix and 10 to build, it's the other way around.

NordSteve 4y ago
The fallacy here is that it’s somehow necessary to divide into feature and bug fixing teams.
- pmontra 4y ago
  It's not necessary but I saw big companies with different budgets for development, (manual) testing, maintenance, operations. The team for testing is definitely separated from the development one, different managers, goals, etc. Operations more like so. Maintenance and bug fixing could be done by the same people but there is always tension at management level about whether to prioritize new features or fix problems. There are different internal customers behind those requests and turf wars are fought every now and then. Different teams and different budgets solve part of that problem but of course the fixes of some bugs can become new features on their own and more turf wars follow.

papito 4y ago

It depends. A lot of devs, from my observations, take no satisfaction in the "last 10%". They stay for a project during the fun, risk-free green field development phase and then peace out. These engineers never really learn from their own mistakes or the mistakes of others. They just jump from one startup to another. "What we need here is another microservice!"

enraged_camel 4y ago

>> But fixing bugs? An actual chance to make things better? That is satisfying. I don't think fixing bugs is the only satisfying thing. Sometimes, the need for new features arises only after users use your product for some time. For example, PriceTable lets users generate professional-looking estimates quickly. After about a year of using our product, some customers said, "we use it everyday and have sent thousands of estimates to our clients. Is there a way to run reports to gain sales analytics insights?" So we added that feature too. And I found it satisfying. :)

alkonaut 4y ago

Haven’t met a single developer who doesn’t prefer feature development to bug fixing.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Nice to meet you. I enjoy nothing more than figuring out a really tricky bug. I like the puzzle.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  I also enjoy the detective work, especially for performance issues. I find I don’t like actually addressing the problems once I solve the mystery, however…
OJFord 4y ago
(Assuming you do this professionally) that doesn't sound great for the make up of your team. I think I like bug fixing/performance fixing/'design' (as in db, infrastructure, code structure, refactoring - not UI) most. I don't mind new feature work, mainly because it typically involves some if the latter I suppose. I really don't like total greenfield work though, where you have to faff about with all the initial config of stuff (which assuming you don't start a new project every day you haven't done for ages) - especially anything to do with JS where you also have to work out how to do it without their 'helpful' cli tool, or how to combine a slightly different 19 tools & frameworks than the example you found.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
Does this count as meeting? :)

scarface74 4y ago

Definitely not true. From a career optimization standpoint , every single major tech company’s leveling guideline that I’ve seen (including mine) has a criteria of “scope” and “impact”. No one ever got promoted for fixing bugs. Even when it’s time for your next job, you can’t very well put on your resume “I fixed bugs for a year” and expect to standout. Then there is answering behavioral questions at the interview where you have to talk about accomplishments. On the other hand, I can’t pretend to know what most developers on the enterprise dev side go through at interviews. Even though that’s where I worked most of my career until 2020, I targeted small companies who were looking for “adult supervision”.