4 ms·

I'd go with your gut on this one and get out of there as quickly as possible, without something else lined up. I say this knowing this cannot always be the righ

I'd go with your gut on this one and get out of there as quickly as possible, without something else lined up. I say this knowing this cannot always be the right answer for every dev in this scenario, but if you are one of those who is unwilling to settle in life/career, are talented, and are confident in your ability to get hired if you set your mind to it, well... I've been there myself, and it is hard to go against the herd telling you to play safe and stay for the security/money. Life is short, make yours worth while and take risks on yourself. Jobs, money, and titles are fungible for those who are truly great practitioners of their craft. This might sound like anti-advice, but a great way to ensure you have all the job prospects in the world going into the future is truly falling in love with practicing your craft and be uncompromising for things that get in your way of that. One thing I would mention before you fully depart is to go for a "longshot" pitch to your superior(s). Put together a plan for how the department could be put back on track and show you can help reach that vision. Find out why the Rail to Springs change was made, why outsourcing is being preferred, what the department's goals are, your thoughts on moving forward, and how you can lead such a change, etc. Worst case, you know for sure this isn't the right fit. Best case, you get a promotion to lead and bring the change the department needs. If you have plans to be more than an employee someday, you might also enjoy finding out how the series of events lead to a poor outcome came about. Something to take insight of, if you ever venture off on your own (plus, it is interesting to know how the world "works"). I wish you the best in life and career!

djmill 12y ago
"I'd go with your gut on this one" - That's what I've been telling myself for a couple of months now, but I haven't been able to convince myself of it yet! So thank you! And as for the management part... it's a lost hope to be honest. I think one of the reasons they switched from Rails to Spring was finding the right Rails developers was difficult. The company doesn't pay competitively, so that was a big hit on offers to Rails devs. Additionally, it was harder to find Rails devs. The funny part is... we got this offshore vendor for Java Spring and none of them knew Spring. So we would've been better sticking to Rails and had them learn Ruby from the get-go.
- hashtree 12y ago
  Your thoughts as to why the changes came about would have been my own first guesses, without knowing the situation. You are right, it might be a lost cause but I still see a longshot pitch due to the "opportunities" I've seen you describe (e.g. recently occurred, Java productivity vs Ruby productivity, new devs don't know Spring, scrapping codebase(s), etc). Some thoughts: - Determine/guess the costs of the outsourcing and use it as the base for your pitch. (i.e. what can I do with ~200k for my own pitch) - They are open to shifting things off-site, use this to your advantage. Rails devs are hard to find? What about a distributed team of talented Rails developers? No longer are you restricted to a ~50 mile radius. Depending upon your location, you might have a higher cost of living than remote developers which is in your favor. Your candidate pool is now huge. Etc - Fewer/more talented developers over more/less talented developers who don't even know the framework (Spring). In all honesty, I'd expect the pitch to fail given the number of seemingly poor decisions made up higher to date. I am curious, is the software being developed an expense for the company or does it make money for the company? I'd expect the former, given the descriptions. Tip: If you can, work for projects that make companies money and are not seen as an expense. That subtle difference has huge impacts on management, pay, decision making, etc.
  - djmill 12y ago
    It's actually a replatform project that generates no money for the company. The old application is running on Rails and we're rebuilding everything in Spring and adding a boat load of new features.

djmill 12y ago

"I'd go with your gut on this one" - That's what I've been telling myself for a couple of months now, but I haven't been able to convince myself of it yet! So thank you! And as for the management part... it's a lost hope to be honest. I think one of the reasons they switched from Rails to Spring was finding the right Rails developers was difficult. The company doesn't pay competitively, so that was a big hit on offers to Rails devs. Additionally, it was harder to find Rails devs. The funny part is... we got this offshore vendor for Java Spring and none of them knew Spring. So we would've been better sticking to Rails and had them learn Ruby from the get-go.

hashtree 12y ago
Your thoughts as to why the changes came about would have been my own first guesses, without knowing the situation. You are right, it might be a lost cause but I still see a longshot pitch due to the "opportunities" I've seen you describe (e.g. recently occurred, Java productivity vs Ruby productivity, new devs don't know Spring, scrapping codebase(s), etc). Some thoughts: - Determine/guess the costs of the outsourcing and use it as the base for your pitch. (i.e. what can I do with ~200k for my own pitch) - They are open to shifting things off-site, use this to your advantage. Rails devs are hard to find? What about a distributed team of talented Rails developers? No longer are you restricted to a ~50 mile radius. Depending upon your location, you might have a higher cost of living than remote developers which is in your favor. Your candidate pool is now huge. Etc - Fewer/more talented developers over more/less talented developers who don't even know the framework (Spring). In all honesty, I'd expect the pitch to fail given the number of seemingly poor decisions made up higher to date. I am curious, is the software being developed an expense for the company or does it make money for the company? I'd expect the former, given the descriptions. Tip: If you can, work for projects that make companies money and are not seen as an expense. That subtle difference has huge impacts on management, pay, decision making, etc.
- djmill 12y ago
  It's actually a replatform project that generates no money for the company. The old application is running on Rails and we're rebuilding everything in Spring and adding a boat load of new features.