6 ms·

If you look at the resumes of engineering or automotive company leadership, you'll see people going through stages of ever expanding responsibilities of part, c

If you look at the resumes of engineering or automotive company leadership, you'll see people going through stages of ever expanding responsibilities of part, component and product design, or management of production facilities of increasing size and importance. The CEO will still emphasize their technical knowledge, non-technical staff will at least try and fake it. In agile software development on the other hand, technical competence usually ends at the lowest tier. A scrum team has folks on it who make software, that's it. Then, lots of scrum masters, business analysts have probably never coded much; the first actual boss in the hierarchy has mostly secretarial and managerial work and will hardly look at code at all. Point is, it's not just that software development is done in ticket-sized portions which does not invite philosophical considerations about the numbers of abstraction layers that one builds and maintains. It's that software developers don't even have a seat at the table(); they get babysat by scrum masters, make compromises during code review, are discouraged from thinking beyond the ticket, and are then of course not usually promoted into leadership roles to which they would bring their technical competence. It appears therefore that any movements to bring awareness to the "software crisis" will be relegated to hobbyists, as the article states at the end: to "Handmade, Permacomputing, and various retro-computing circles". () I partly blame Hollywood and their incessant humiliation of software/IT people, while creating endless leading roles for doctors and lawyers, effortlessly weaving their complicated terminologies into fascinating storylines, which is aparently not possible to do for us? Maybe the scriptwriting AIs can come up with something here soon.

steveBK123 2y ago
I could buy this argument. Had I been a junior during the agile era, I'm not sure I would have developed as fast or as far as I have. The most agile pilled company I worked for just treated juniors & seniors as interchangeable cogs, except seniors should be able to clear more points per sprint. Active discouragement from thinking outside the scope of your ticket, keep your head down and mouth shut.
- heurist 2y ago
  When I was starting out a bit more than a decade ago, I was on an agile/scrum software team in a hardware company. The team was fine but I found the process painful. I ejected as soon as a new director realized he could do algebra with the story points and began plotting stories quarters out. I've never been on a scrum team since and am happier for it. As a manager now, I would push back on scrum in almost every situation (and have).
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    The problem with "agile" is that everybody claims to do it. Companies with a healthy environment cram their procedures into agile-derived names, and keep the healthy environment, while unhealthy ones also cram their procedures into agile-derived names, and use their universality as an excuse to never improve. I think scrum is irremediable, but even then, some places only practice it pro-forma: divide the work into tickets at the beginning of the sprint, rewrite the tickets into what they did at the end, and go home happy.
- intelVISA 2y ago
  > juniors & seniors as interchangeable cogs welcome to the car factory
- myaccountonhn 2y ago
  This doesn’t mirror my experience at all. Where I worked agile meant removing unnecessary processes as well as trusting people over tools. As a junior I was given a lot of flexibility and probably too little oversight. I was mostly given a high level task, no deadline, and had to together with others find ways to make the tasks smaller.
fuzzy2 2y ago
The perceived misery you describe I feel is self-inflicted. Many devs "below" me have become entirely disconnected from customer needs, instead only focusing on "interesting" dev problems. Why do developers only work on ticket-sized portions of the actual requirements? To put it succinctly: because they are simply too dumb. They cannot wrap their heads around it. They cannot grasp it. Do I sound frustrated? I am. It is inscrutable. Sorry.
- wryl 2y ago
  Problems surrounding computing education do compound these frustrations, and I sympathize. Having worked for larger organizations (whatever FAANG calls itself these days, I can't keep track), as well as academia and independent education, I've seen both halves of the "production line" for newcomers to computing. Something has to change in how we bring individuals into our field. I have some ideas based on my experiences, but you're not in the wrong for feeling frustrated about this. It is the state of things, and many companies are not equipped to handle it, because it's unexplored territory.
- stackskipton 2y ago
  I think categorizing it as "Too dumb" is also doing disservice to many developers who are stuck in feature factories. After a while you realize business is happy with status quo so do your Jira tickets, take your paycheck and go home. My puny stock options are extremely unlikely to be impacted by my work output. My boss doesn't care about Tech Debt. Get this ticket done, get it done quick and move on. He figures he will be long gone before tech debt racks up to point he would get in trouble for it. Hell, I'm not sure his higher ups even realize the tech debt problem so fact if he is here for 4 years, they wouldn't realize what was cause of the tech debt.
  - fuzzy2 2y ago
    Though my employer certainly could be categorized as a feature factory (individual software development), we kind of sell the opposite: Sustainable development producing software which can be changed easily. There's only direct monetary compensation. Hierarchies are flat. Like, too flat. I understand many do not have the energy to fight the status quo and some may not have the… eloquence to do so. I have worked very hard for many years to end up where I am. If others don't, I expect them to at least accept where they remain. Because they don't do "don't care". They are effectively sabotaging projects. They certainly aren't unintelligent. They still act pretty dumb. Again, I must apologize for my polemics.
rafaelmn 2y ago
> I partly blame Hollywood and their incessant humiliation of software/IT people, while creating endless leading roles for doctors and lawyers, effortlessly weaving their complicated terminologies into fascinating storylines, which is aparently not possible to do for us? Doctors and lawyers deal with people and everyday problems that are easy to turn into a interesting story. I don't see many contract lawyers or radiologists as protagonists - it's ER docs and criminal law. Software development is about rigorously talking to a computer all day, either solving mundane solved tasks in a new application, or problems that you can't even grasp without a technical background. I'm a developer who started programming as a teen over 20 years ago for fun - and I'm bored out of my mind with most of the work - I don't even try to talk about it to non-developers because I know it's about as interesting as accounting, more people would get useful info out of their stories.
- kwere 2y ago
  accounting, expecially tax optimization is really interesting/fun, but maybe its just in my bubble in a high tax country where most of the middle class needs tax optmization to live above the poverty line
- croemer 2y ago
  Bugs can make great stories. But only for a niche audience. Not Hollywood.
asdfman123 2y ago
In big tech lots of managers are highly technical all the way up. But there's two problems: they can't get into the weeds, and they also are subject to the perverse incentive of being rewarded for generating complexity. Some people fight it, sure, but those who fight it are less likely to be promoted. You don't get rewarded for having less staff under you or eliminating your own role.
jahewson 2y ago
Counterpoint: Boeing.

steveBK123 2y ago

I could buy this argument. Had I been a junior during the agile era, I'm not sure I would have developed as fast or as far as I have. The most agile pilled company I worked for just treated juniors & seniors as interchangeable cogs, except seniors should be able to clear more points per sprint. Active discouragement from thinking outside the scope of your ticket, keep your head down and mouth shut.

heurist 2y ago
When I was starting out a bit more than a decade ago, I was on an agile/scrum software team in a hardware company. The team was fine but I found the process painful. I ejected as soon as a new director realized he could do algebra with the story points and began plotting stories quarters out. I've never been on a scrum team since and am happier for it. As a manager now, I would push back on scrum in almost every situation (and have).
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  The problem with "agile" is that everybody claims to do it. Companies with a healthy environment cram their procedures into agile-derived names, and keep the healthy environment, while unhealthy ones also cram their procedures into agile-derived names, and use their universality as an excuse to never improve. I think scrum is irremediable, but even then, some places only practice it pro-forma: divide the work into tickets at the beginning of the sprint, rewrite the tickets into what they did at the end, and go home happy.
intelVISA 2y ago
> juniors & seniors as interchangeable cogs welcome to the car factory
myaccountonhn 2y ago
This doesn’t mirror my experience at all. Where I worked agile meant removing unnecessary processes as well as trusting people over tools. As a junior I was given a lot of flexibility and probably too little oversight. I was mostly given a high level task, no deadline, and had to together with others find ways to make the tasks smaller.

fuzzy2 2y ago

The perceived misery you describe I feel is self-inflicted. Many devs "below" me have become entirely disconnected from customer needs, instead only focusing on "interesting" dev problems. Why do developers only work on ticket-sized portions of the actual requirements? To put it succinctly: because they are simply too dumb. They cannot wrap their heads around it. They cannot grasp it. Do I sound frustrated? I am. It is inscrutable. Sorry.

wryl 2y ago
Problems surrounding computing education do compound these frustrations, and I sympathize. Having worked for larger organizations (whatever FAANG calls itself these days, I can't keep track), as well as academia and independent education, I've seen both halves of the "production line" for newcomers to computing. Something has to change in how we bring individuals into our field. I have some ideas based on my experiences, but you're not in the wrong for feeling frustrated about this. It is the state of things, and many companies are not equipped to handle it, because it's unexplored territory.
stackskipton 2y ago
I think categorizing it as "Too dumb" is also doing disservice to many developers who are stuck in feature factories. After a while you realize business is happy with status quo so do your Jira tickets, take your paycheck and go home. My puny stock options are extremely unlikely to be impacted by my work output. My boss doesn't care about Tech Debt. Get this ticket done, get it done quick and move on. He figures he will be long gone before tech debt racks up to point he would get in trouble for it. Hell, I'm not sure his higher ups even realize the tech debt problem so fact if he is here for 4 years, they wouldn't realize what was cause of the tech debt.
- fuzzy2 2y ago
  Though my employer certainly could be categorized as a feature factory (individual software development), we kind of sell the opposite: Sustainable development producing software which can be changed easily. There's only direct monetary compensation. Hierarchies are flat. Like, too flat. I understand many do not have the energy to fight the status quo and some may not have the… eloquence to do so. I have worked very hard for many years to end up where I am. If others don't, I expect them to at least accept where they remain. Because they don't do "don't care". They are effectively sabotaging projects. They certainly aren't unintelligent. They still act pretty dumb. Again, I must apologize for my polemics.

rafaelmn 2y ago

> I partly blame Hollywood and their incessant humiliation of software/IT people, while creating endless leading roles for doctors and lawyers, effortlessly weaving their complicated terminologies into fascinating storylines, which is aparently not possible to do for us? Doctors and lawyers deal with people and everyday problems that are easy to turn into a interesting story. I don't see many contract lawyers or radiologists as protagonists - it's ER docs and criminal law. Software development is about rigorously talking to a computer all day, either solving mundane solved tasks in a new application, or problems that you can't even grasp without a technical background. I'm a developer who started programming as a teen over 20 years ago for fun - and I'm bored out of my mind with most of the work - I don't even try to talk about it to non-developers because I know it's about as interesting as accounting, more people would get useful info out of their stories.

kwere 2y ago
accounting, expecially tax optimization is really interesting/fun, but maybe its just in my bubble in a high tax country where most of the middle class needs tax optmization to live above the poverty line
croemer 2y ago
Bugs can make great stories. But only for a niche audience. Not Hollywood.

asdfman123 2y ago

In big tech lots of managers are highly technical all the way up. But there's two problems: they can't get into the weeds, and they also are subject to the perverse incentive of being rewarded for generating complexity. Some people fight it, sure, but those who fight it are less likely to be promoted. You don't get rewarded for having less staff under you or eliminating your own role.

jahewson 2y ago

Counterpoint: Boeing.