4 ms·

From years of my experience, both in big corporate tech and startups, smart Engineers will always find business reasons to sell you their tech-debt free perfect

by rsp1984 11y ago

From years of my experience, both in big corporate tech and startups, smart Engineers will always find business reasons to sell you their tech-debt free perfect rainbow unicorn architecture. Even worse, if you're then not equally technical as a manager you will never know whether you've made a solid choice by aligning with or against the engineer's view, and even worse your engineers will quickly take on a "see, I told you so" stance should things work out not perfectly under an agile model. Edit: I should add that I am an engineer myself.

bunderbunder 11y ago
I've seen entire products - established, successful products - sunk by a single decision to let the engineers build a gold-plated replacement for some component that had a messy architecture and eye-watering code on the inside but otherwise wasn't broken and didn't need fixing. This is a spot where I'm definitely in line with the Scrum position: If it's really causing problems, then the developers should have no problem making a reasonable business case for fixing them. If working on it's really causing that much pain, then the developers will figure out a way to quietly fix it in a way that doesn't (and needn't) vex the product owner. If neither of those is the case then you best let sleeping bears lie. (I'm an engineer too.)
- pekk 11y ago
  Just because you don't think anything is wrong in terms of external acceptance criteria, does not mean that there is not something wrong with the code that is of real consequence. Contrarian anecdotes aside, the reason everyone knows the phrase "technical debt" is because SO MANY of us see projects wrecked by greedily demanding many features and changes as fast as possible in a continuous crunch mode, without considering long-term costs like defect rate or turnaround time on bugfix and feature implementations... or developer burnout. It's better not to assume that developers are blathering when they ask for formal permission to carry out QA or maintenance tasks or upgrades, if they are the people who know what the work looks like on the ground level. If you are putting lots of time pressure on developers and implying that heads will roll if aggressive deadlines are missed, it doesn't make sense also to leave it up to those developers to magically find the time to fix lurking internal time-bombs. This makes products worse, it makes developers' lives worse and developers are stuck with the blame for something they can't control. Maybe as a PM or whatever that suits you, to dump all the risk in the laps of your developers. But if you are yourself an engineer you should not make yourself part of this problem.
  - bunderbunder 11y ago
    I wouldn't want to make myself a part of that problem. If I found myself on a project where the business folks didn't care about things like defect rate or supportability, I'd be looking for a new job pronto. Those things aren't invisible to the business, they're a core part of the customer's value perception. A product manager who doesn't understand that is a product manager who doesn't have the slightest idea how to manage a product. Similarly, living in continuous crunch mode is something I let myself get bamboozled into quite a bit in my younger days. I bake time to leave the camp cleaner than I found it into my effort estimates, and I know how not to let myself be pushed past my limits. If I worked for a place that couldn't respect that, I'd also be looking for a new job pronto. I hope that you were being hyperbolic for rhetorical effect in your post, but if your work environment is really like the situations you were describing then I would also encourage you to be looking for a new job pronto. Life's too short to waste on that kind of stress.
    - alttab 11y ago
      Words of wisdom for sure. I'll add that voting with your feet is a common thing for developers to do, and poor management, being poor at management, won't notice it for what it is.
  - jfoutz 11y ago
    Eh, referential transparency is a thing. And that idea can be extended beyond a simple function. It's totally possible to contain horrible sins behind a clean API. I've done horrible things, but those things don't leak all over the whole project. On the other hand, i worked at the same place for a long time. I got to see the benefits and consequences of my mistakes and successes over years. I do think i burned out. It took me a long time to learn how to contain nuclear waste. In the end, it's easier to just work someplace that doesn't put crazy demands on developers. There's a continuum of perfection <-> functionality. unfortunately for new developers, it takes a while to figure out where you lie on that line. Finding a place that's close to your preference is really best. It's kind of like driving. Everyone slower is a Sunday driver, everyone faster is a lunatic with a death wish. I'm happy with homogeneous drivers - too far from the mark and i get nervous. I'd bet it's the same for pretty much everyone else as well.
angersock 11y ago
Had a startup fail because we tried to do the right thing instead of "Fuck it, ship it". Worked at another place where the codebase finally curled up into a ball and refused to accept any refactorings short of a complete rewrite of some core systems--at which point we discovered some nasty bugs in production that we punted to our support folks to deal with. I've no idea if they ever eventually sorted it out. Good engineers will recognize when it's "good enough". However, that requires biz folks that can provide useful feedback and actually get things in front of customers and get paid. Because, honestly, if we're like three extra features in, have no validation, and are cutting corners, you're damned right I'm going to put on the brakes and redirect the effort toward paying off technical debt. Because, and this can't be overstated enough, whether or not the business fails in six months is not something we engineers can control--but I'll be damned if I'm going to come in and keep sinking my dwindling life force on a fucking technical lemon. If your biz folks can't establish trust in their abilities, then you might as well hone your craft. EDIT: Large amounts of technical debt are a sign of either rapid growth or bad management. If the company is growing, we can overlook the debt every time we, say, waste 30 minutes waiting on a build or fixing a weird nested CSS bug or some other damn fool thing. If the company isn't, then we lose respect for everyone above us in the technical leadership, because they let--by deliberate neglect!--the situation get so bad.

by rsp1984 11y ago

bunderbunder 11y ago

I've seen entire products - established, successful products - sunk by a single decision to let the engineers build a gold-plated replacement for some component that had a messy architecture and eye-watering code on the inside but otherwise wasn't broken and didn't need fixing. This is a spot where I'm definitely in line with the Scrum position: If it's really causing problems, then the developers should have no problem making a reasonable business case for fixing them. If working on it's really causing that much pain, then the developers will figure out a way to quietly fix it in a way that doesn't (and needn't) vex the product owner. If neither of those is the case then you best let sleeping bears lie. (I'm an engineer too.)

pekk 11y ago
Just because you don't think anything is wrong in terms of external acceptance criteria, does not mean that there is not something wrong with the code that is of real consequence. Contrarian anecdotes aside, the reason everyone knows the phrase "technical debt" is because SO MANY of us see projects wrecked by greedily demanding many features and changes as fast as possible in a continuous crunch mode, without considering long-term costs like defect rate or turnaround time on bugfix and feature implementations... or developer burnout. It's better not to assume that developers are blathering when they ask for formal permission to carry out QA or maintenance tasks or upgrades, if they are the people who know what the work looks like on the ground level. If you are putting lots of time pressure on developers and implying that heads will roll if aggressive deadlines are missed, it doesn't make sense also to leave it up to those developers to magically find the time to fix lurking internal time-bombs. This makes products worse, it makes developers' lives worse and developers are stuck with the blame for something they can't control. Maybe as a PM or whatever that suits you, to dump all the risk in the laps of your developers. But if you are yourself an engineer you should not make yourself part of this problem.
- bunderbunder 11y ago
  I wouldn't want to make myself a part of that problem. If I found myself on a project where the business folks didn't care about things like defect rate or supportability, I'd be looking for a new job pronto. Those things aren't invisible to the business, they're a core part of the customer's value perception. A product manager who doesn't understand that is a product manager who doesn't have the slightest idea how to manage a product. Similarly, living in continuous crunch mode is something I let myself get bamboozled into quite a bit in my younger days. I bake time to leave the camp cleaner than I found it into my effort estimates, and I know how not to let myself be pushed past my limits. If I worked for a place that couldn't respect that, I'd also be looking for a new job pronto. I hope that you were being hyperbolic for rhetorical effect in your post, but if your work environment is really like the situations you were describing then I would also encourage you to be looking for a new job pronto. Life's too short to waste on that kind of stress.
  - alttab 11y ago
    Words of wisdom for sure. I'll add that voting with your feet is a common thing for developers to do, and poor management, being poor at management, won't notice it for what it is.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  Eh, referential transparency is a thing. And that idea can be extended beyond a simple function. It's totally possible to contain horrible sins behind a clean API. I've done horrible things, but those things don't leak all over the whole project. On the other hand, i worked at the same place for a long time. I got to see the benefits and consequences of my mistakes and successes over years. I do think i burned out. It took me a long time to learn how to contain nuclear waste. In the end, it's easier to just work someplace that doesn't put crazy demands on developers. There's a continuum of perfection <-> functionality. unfortunately for new developers, it takes a while to figure out where you lie on that line. Finding a place that's close to your preference is really best. It's kind of like driving. Everyone slower is a Sunday driver, everyone faster is a lunatic with a death wish. I'm happy with homogeneous drivers - too far from the mark and i get nervous. I'd bet it's the same for pretty much everyone else as well.

angersock 11y ago

Had a startup fail because we tried to do the right thing instead of "Fuck it, ship it". Worked at another place where the codebase finally curled up into a ball and refused to accept any refactorings short of a complete rewrite of some core systems--at which point we discovered some nasty bugs in production that we punted to our support folks to deal with. I've no idea if they ever eventually sorted it out. Good engineers will recognize when it's "good enough". However, that requires biz folks that can provide useful feedback and actually get things in front of customers and get paid. Because, honestly, if we're like three extra features in, have no validation, and are cutting corners, you're damned right I'm going to put on the brakes and redirect the effort toward paying off technical debt. Because, and this can't be overstated enough, whether or not the business fails in six months is not something we engineers can control--but I'll be damned if I'm going to come in and keep sinking my dwindling life force on a fucking technical lemon. If your biz folks can't establish trust in their abilities, then you might as well hone your craft. EDIT: Large amounts of technical debt are a sign of either rapid growth or bad management. If the company is growing, we can overlook the debt every time we, say, waste 30 minutes waiting on a build or fixing a weird nested CSS bug or some other damn fool thing. If the company isn't, then we lose respect for everyone above us in the technical leadership, because they let--by deliberate neglect!--the situation get so bad.