3 ms·
> Supporting the services you are developing feels like natural part of the job. It wasn't always seen as a "natural part of the job". Time was when most compa
by mangamadaiyan 3y ago
> Supporting the services you are developing feels like natural part of the job.
It wasn't always seen as a "natural part of the job". Time was when most companies had a dedicated team of support engineers, who worked in 8-hour shifts, and provided support round the clock. Developers also got to spend the occasional week or month in support. Eventually, a CEO (who I will not name) figured that they could save costs if they got rid of support, and got the dev engineers to do it instead - and sold it as a "natural part of the job" - which kool-aid almost everybody has drunk by now. Which is how devs now burn their weekends, nights, and health being on-call without a choice. I've seen on-call responsibilities pretty much involve being available 24x7 for a week, once every two months. It's not right, it's not natural, and it's a result of CEO penny-pinching. That's just it.
- noisy_boy 3y agoWhat you are describing is how most financial firms still work today. Sure Devs are the escalation in case the first line of support can't solve it. But the advantage of having a first line is that they are specialists in supporting, get better over a period of time, are mentally prepared because that is literally the job they signed up for and it lets Devs focus on core development. To those who say that this allows Devs to get away with murder because someone else is handling it - support escalations are very visible and if your stuff is breaking all the time, you come out looking very bad in the eyes of your management. Not to mention that any self respecting developer would/should apply a basic standard of care to their code. If anyone has developers that don't, it is an individual or cultural issue, not an issue with the model of separate support team.