5 ms·

Naw, you still don't want to, at least not in a context in which you're billing enough to be a real workout, because the non-engineering aspects will still get

by jerf 3y ago

Naw, you still don't want to, at least not in a context in which you're billing enough to be a real workout, because the non-engineering aspects will still get you. Like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37557989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37557989 which, in short, refers to the fact that nobody in the company considers billing a system to be designed in the first place, so it gets approached with a truncated Waterfall that doesn't even have a requirements analysis phase, so you'll have no support whatsoever for your attempt to bring higher quality to billing. Also, with all due respect to those working on billing I have seen that it is generally handed to engineers who are, shall we say, adequate for the task but no more, and unless you're 100% greenfielding you're going to be dealing with their stuff no matter what. From another cynical point of view, it is a situation where you can fail miserably and bring great pain to the company that is traced directly to you, but there is no success; a functioning billing system is just what is expected. It's all downside and no upside for you personally. I have a billing system (a component of the larger whole) and I'm pleased to be able to hand it off next month. I've not enjoyed my stay there. Though it was miles better than when I brushed the data lake/data analysis world. If I had to maintain this system for another few years I could and I wouldn't scream if I had to do it again someday. Dealing with the data analysis world beyond just throwing them some data is a "never again".

specialist 3y ago
> ...miles better than when I brushed the data lake/data analysis world The data pond, puddle, and lakeside cottage methodology would have spared you that pain. More seriously, my experience with that world reinforced my view that it's all monkey motion (much effort, negative value). Otherwise, spot on summary of IT dev work. Which now applies to "web services" too. I've long been befuddled by the rise of "agile". It's not meant for product dev, right? Well stupid me took forever to realize that most work is actually IT (aka data processing) and not product dev.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > I've long been befuddled by the rise of "agile". It's not meant for product dev, right? It...is?
  - specialist 3y ago
    Is "agile" meant for product dev? IMHO, no. Very loosely, "product dev" projects have concrete deliverables, deadlines, and high cost of change (updates). So therefore are ameniable to PMI-ish critical path like methodologies. (Avoiding the evergreen unresolvable sophistry wrt "waterfall".) The original motivation for "agile" was to protect the dev team from terrible customers (clients). Those who cannot or will not commit to requirements, actively resist any kind of formalism, have no clue what "done" even means. Meaning most IT (data processing) efforts. And now most web stuff. "Agile" is totally rational in those unwinnable situations. Because the dev team would always have something to show for their suffering. Lessening the likelihood of being the scapegoat come the inevitable failure. Unfortunately, "agile" became a fad, a belief system, an identity. Curtailing any kind of introspection. Only in the last few years have we been able to have calm, frank discussions about "agile". Mostly because some of its progenators have broken ranks and done mea culpas.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > Very loosely, "product dev" projects have concrete deliverables, deadlines, and high cost of change (updates). Why? A web based product can iterate, for example. We see the most experimentation in places like Amazon, where they're constantly deploying updates and experiments. Why should such a product have a high cost of change?
      - specialist 3y ago
        For APIs, backward compatibility, mostly. Back when we burned CD-ROMs, distributing updates like bug fixes involved non-trivial effort. Today, libs/packages and apps are somewhere between "agile" and PMI. FWIW, for web stuff, I'm very interested in "test into prod" methodology. Neither agile or critical path; its something new. First popularized by the gilt.com fella (IIRC). But haven't yet found any teams (to join) that bold.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        > For APIs, backward compatibility, mostly. But you can still evolve APIs; breaking changes can occur much less than normal changes. And even then you can version them and run old and new in parallel if you want. I don't see why that would be slow. I also don't see why making things in a way that's hard to change suddenly makes something amenable to agile.
ttymck 3y ago
> but there is no success; a functioning billing system is just what is expected. It's all downside and no upside for you personally. I just wanted to say thank you for giving a robust voice to the frustrations I've felt after building multiple billing systems. This and your linked comment were a pleasure to read, and simply spot on. Coincidentally, I am also pursuing a career transition toward data analysis. If I understand correctly, you are lamenting "data engineering" in contrast to "ad hoc data analysis deliverables"?

by jerf 3y ago

specialist 3y ago

> ...miles better than when I brushed the data lake/data analysis world The data pond, puddle, and lakeside cottage methodology would have spared you that pain. More seriously, my experience with that world reinforced my view that it's all monkey motion (much effort, negative value). Otherwise, spot on summary of IT dev work. Which now applies to "web services" too. I've long been befuddled by the rise of "agile". It's not meant for product dev, right? Well stupid me took forever to realize that most work is actually IT (aka data processing) and not product dev.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> I've long been befuddled by the rise of "agile". It's not meant for product dev, right? It...is?
- specialist 3y ago
  Is "agile" meant for product dev? IMHO, no. Very loosely, "product dev" projects have concrete deliverables, deadlines, and high cost of change (updates). So therefore are ameniable to PMI-ish critical path like methodologies. (Avoiding the evergreen unresolvable sophistry wrt "waterfall".) The original motivation for "agile" was to protect the dev team from terrible customers (clients). Those who cannot or will not commit to requirements, actively resist any kind of formalism, have no clue what "done" even means. Meaning most IT (data processing) efforts. And now most web stuff. "Agile" is totally rational in those unwinnable situations. Because the dev team would always have something to show for their suffering. Lessening the likelihood of being the scapegoat come the inevitable failure. Unfortunately, "agile" became a fad, a belief system, an identity. Curtailing any kind of introspection. Only in the last few years have we been able to have calm, frank discussions about "agile". Mostly because some of its progenators have broken ranks and done mea culpas.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Very loosely, "product dev" projects have concrete deliverables, deadlines, and high cost of change (updates). Why? A web based product can iterate, for example. We see the most experimentation in places like Amazon, where they're constantly deploying updates and experiments. Why should such a product have a high cost of change?
    - specialist 3y ago
      For APIs, backward compatibility, mostly. Back when we burned CD-ROMs, distributing updates like bug fixes involved non-trivial effort. Today, libs/packages and apps are somewhere between "agile" and PMI. FWIW, for web stuff, I'm very interested in "test into prod" methodology. Neither agile or critical path; its something new. First popularized by the gilt.com fella (IIRC). But haven't yet found any teams (to join) that bold.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > For APIs, backward compatibility, mostly. But you can still evolve APIs; breaking changes can occur much less than normal changes. And even then you can version them and run old and new in parallel if you want. I don't see why that would be slow. I also don't see why making things in a way that's hard to change suddenly makes something amenable to agile.

ttymck 3y ago

> but there is no success; a functioning billing system is just what is expected. It's all downside and no upside for you personally. I just wanted to say thank you for giving a robust voice to the frustrations I've felt after building multiple billing systems. This and your linked comment were a pleasure to read, and simply spot on. Coincidentally, I am also pursuing a career transition toward data analysis. If I understand correctly, you are lamenting "data engineering" in contrast to "ad hoc data analysis deliverables"?