2 ms·
I think developers are paid to competently deliver software to their employer, and part of that competence is properly vetting the code you are delivering. If I
by ryandrake 2y ago
I think developers are paid to competently deliver software to their employer, and part of that competence is properly vetting the code you are delivering. If I wrote code that ended up having serious bugs like crashing, I’d expect to have at least a minimum consequence, like root causing it and/or writing a postmortem to help avoid it in the future. Same as I’d expect if I pulled in a bad dependency.
- baumy 2y agoYour expectations do not match the employment market as I have ever experienced it. Have you ever worked anywhere that said "go ahead and slow down on delivering product features that drive business value so you can audit the code of your dependencies, that's fine, we'll wait"? I haven't.
- ryandrake 2y agoYea, and that’s the problem. If such absolute rock bottom minimal expectations (know what the code does) are seen as too slow and onerous, the industry is cooked!
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoYeah, about that, businesses are pushing and introducing code written by AI/LLM now, so now you won't even know what your own code does.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- djeastm 2y agoDue diligence is a sliding scale. Work at a webdev agency is "get it done as fast as possible for this MVP we need". Work at NASA or a biomedical device company? Every line of code is triple-checked. It's entirely dependent on the cost/benefit analysis.