3 ms·

Coding in Sinatra over Rails won't make you ill. What are the implications when the only apparent downside is that a non-technical person is getting the product

by brodney 14y ago

Coding in Sinatra over Rails won't make you ill. What are the implications when the only apparent downside is that a non-technical person is getting the product in a different framework than he wanted?

zem 14y ago
he might hire someone to maintain it based on their rails experience, for example.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
MrSane 14y ago
I think that it's simply a matter of getting what you believe you paid for. The implication of an alternative choice may not be clear to the contractor, but it might be important to the non-technical person (even if they don't specifically know what the technology is). Perhaps the non-technical person had a trusted friend who is a Ruby on Rails expert -- and this person was not available at the time of initial development, but available later to maintain the app?
spitfire 14y ago
Follow on development, and available talent pool. You wrote a super fast OLTP system in forth? Great! You're a god, but no one can support it or extend it to meet future needs. Perhaps Bob had reasonable expectations that he'd be able to organically grow this app over time. Not being technical he chose a platform which seemed to have a pool of talent available to him. In the small, this was a trivial technical decision. In the large, business picture, that decision might have major negative effects. Bob should have been consulted, and had the decisions explained to him. On the other hand, Bob could have explained his longer term intent to his subordinate and allowed her to make a reasonable decision as long as the tradeoffs were communicated back to him.
powatom 14y ago
As somebody else has mentioned - if the customer wants to modify the application later on after the initial contract has ended, and looks for somebody experienced in what they believe they had initially been sold, then that is a costly process, both in terms of time and money. We don't work in a bubble - our decisions have impacts long after we've ended our own contract with clients. Clients should be given exactly what they're expecting. If you think the client should go a different route, then you should explain that to the client, and document exactly what the final product will be. Even if the difference doesn't make you 'ill', it is simply unethical to sell somebody something they're not expecting - whether you believe it's better or not.

by brodney 14y ago

zem 14y ago

he might hire someone to maintain it based on their rails experience, for example.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

MrSane 14y ago

I think that it's simply a matter of getting what you believe you paid for. The implication of an alternative choice may not be clear to the contractor, but it might be important to the non-technical person (even if they don't specifically know what the technology is). Perhaps the non-technical person had a trusted friend who is a Ruby on Rails expert -- and this person was not available at the time of initial development, but available later to maintain the app?

spitfire 14y ago

Follow on development, and available talent pool. You wrote a super fast OLTP system in forth? Great! You're a god, but no one can support it or extend it to meet future needs. Perhaps Bob had reasonable expectations that he'd be able to organically grow this app over time. Not being technical he chose a platform which seemed to have a pool of talent available to him. In the small, this was a trivial technical decision. In the large, business picture, that decision might have major negative effects. Bob should have been consulted, and had the decisions explained to him. On the other hand, Bob could have explained his longer term intent to his subordinate and allowed her to make a reasonable decision as long as the tradeoffs were communicated back to him.

powatom 14y ago

As somebody else has mentioned - if the customer wants to modify the application later on after the initial contract has ended, and looks for somebody experienced in what they believe they had initially been sold, then that is a costly process, both in terms of time and money. We don't work in a bubble - our decisions have impacts long after we've ended our own contract with clients. Clients should be given exactly what they're expecting. If you think the client should go a different route, then you should explain that to the client, and document exactly what the final product will be. Even if the difference doesn't make you 'ill', it is simply unethical to sell somebody something they're not expecting - whether you believe it's better or not.