Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 119 120 121 122 [123] 124 125
[#] Sat Jun 10 2017 17:54:52 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Consultants are always going to be the worst of the worst.  By being fad-compliant they can present themselves to management as being cutting-edge while billing way more hours than otherwise would have been required to complete a project.

I actually like JavaScript as a language but it's true that the whole node.js thing got way too big too fast.



[#] Sat Jun 10 2017 20:37:48 EDT from kc5tja @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Javascript can burn in hell. In fact, it's what keeps the brimstone hot.
I'd rather code in Perl

[#] Sat Jun 10 2017 23:33:41 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I was coding in Perl some 35 years ago. I would be BBSing on my 300 bps modem and my sister would pick up the phone and scream at me to get off the line ... what appeared on the screen I have to assume is parseable Perl code.

[#] Mon Jun 12 2017 08:38:32 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I'm not a fan of Perl, as several folks here know. I prefer my code to look legible.

(But then why, you may wonder, would I prefer to code in C++ if that's true?
It's complicated).

When using a scripting language, I'm fond of Python.

Some of the Rails programming I got into recently was pleasant enough.

JavaScript? Eh... I could take it or leave it. I don't have a problem with the language itself, per se, but I could see if you had to work with it across different browser environments where those different environments might make it annoying.

Java? That's a language encouraging a sort of broken mechanic with more broken-ness on top of a broken idea. It's so seductive, especially when you have things like Eclipse that makes it almost a visual language with its point-and-clickness (and, seriously, I do like that feature in the IDE), but when you have to do something large with it, and everything looks like objects just for fucking objects' sake, you want to just get something the fuck done, but it actively gets in the way, insisting you try to think like it, rather than like a human being.

[#] Mon Jun 12 2017 15:27:35 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

cutting-edge while billing way more hours than otherwise would have
been required to complete a project.

Ding ding, winner winner chicken dinner.

Their architectural approach is "build a big huge webservice module deployed to a separate machine" for a small bugfix that should have involved writing a new .class or two and wiring them into the existing execution flow.

"Job security", I guess.

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 09:12:22 EDT from Ladyhawke @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Mon Jun 12 2017 03:27:35 PM EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored
cutting-edge while billing way more hours than otherwise would have
been required to complete a project.

Ding ding, winner winner chicken dinner.

Their architectural approach is "build a big huge webservice module deployed to a separate machine" for a small bugfix that should have involved writing a new .class or two and wiring them into the existing execution flow.

"Job security", I guess.

Not sure what consultants you guys use....or maybe coder consultants live in a different world.  My InfoSec professional services consultants could never get away with that!  We constantly are forced to justify every approach and plan - and hours are watched like 4 hawks in surround sound.  It's often hard just to get clients to pay for the most basic of things they need to avoid breach, much less "nice to haves"....forget about extra bells and whistles.



[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 10:01:20 EDT from kc5tja @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Software engineering consultants are mostly process focused, and significantly less focused on specific frameworks. The glut of frameworks and APIs today is due entirely to a breed of employee known as the "serial entrepreneur."
These guys are known for hopping from start-up to start-up, each time working with relatively recent (or inventing entirely new) technologies because it's the latest, greatest thing. They've never read Mythical Man-Month, and so are completely unaware that a silver bullet doesn't exist; or, they simply don't believe it, and are hellbent on trying to invent one anyway.

The result is a pile of mostly identical feature sets in otherwise wildly incompatible tools or languages, requiring otherwise responsible engineers to become generalists and forcing them to learn whole *classes* of technologies instead of settling down and focusing on a small set of orthogonal and portable tools. They decry vociferously how one should not reinvent the wheel, hypocritically ignoring that they did exactly that months to years ago when they spawned their niche of the open source community. (It also ignores the fact that I cannot remember when I last observed wagon wheels on a Mazda RX-7, but I digress; that's a rant for another time.)

Meanwhile, after they've bounced from their current place of employment, these serial entrepreneurs leave the husk of their flagship projects for the rest of the "responsible engineers" to maintain in their absence, devoid of documentation, crushed under the weight of schedules now coming due, and with the routine conflagration of operations infrastructure one tends to get with underspecified, immature technologies applied at scale to real-world problems.
My previous employment actually took measurements: 75% of our 12-man team's time was spent actively dealing with ops-related issues; only 20% remained for productive work. (The remaining 5% were spent in meetings and the like.)

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 10:03:49 EDT from kc5tja @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

More succinctly: beware the rockstar coder. They're dangerous, and have a propensity to build products to sell companies, not to satisfy customer demand.

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 12:21:49 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

What did I read recently? "Python where you can, C++ where you must."

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 12:24:30 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Probably not a bad rule of thumb, although it sounds a trifle simplistic.

I don't know if I'd want to use either for web development.

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 12:30:20 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2017-06-13 12:24 from fleeb @uncnsrd

Probably not a bad rule of thumb, although it sounds a trifle
simplistic.


I'm sure a highly paid consultant said it.

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 12:58:39 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Most likely.

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 13:04:11 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

What did I read recently? "Python where you can, C++ where you must."


How about "use the language and framework the rest of the system is written in, unless you've got an extremely compelling reason to change that."

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 13:05:24 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Their architectural approach is "build a big huge webservice module
deployed to a separate machine" for a small bugfix that should have
involved writing a new .class or two and wiring them into the existing

execution flow.

This is known in the buzzword-compliant world as "service oriented architecture" (SOA)

And the deployment people just *love* being asked to stand up two dozen services where one would have sufficed.

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 13:14:11 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Ford, however, simply calls this, "Progress."

(Mockingly, for those who don't know him).

[#] Tue Jun 13 2017 22:40:08 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Or as I've always preferred to say it: "We've been automating the same tasks for 50 years, and we keep getting less and less efficient at it."

[#] Wed Jun 14 2017 15:13:27 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Building in the same language and framework is great. Until you come across something written in Visual Basic and Classic ASP.

[#] Wed Jun 14 2017 16:21:16 EDT from bennabiy @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Sometimes the building process takes burning down first....



[#] Wed Jun 14 2017 16:27:30 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Building in the same language and framework is great. Until you come

across something written in Visual Basic and Classic ASP.

I don't think I would want to work with anyone who's made those kind of stupid design decisions at any point in the past.

[#] Wed Jun 14 2017 16:41:13 EDT from Ragnar Danneskjold @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Can't blame managment when they don't have anyone to tell them any better....

Go to page: First ... 119 120 121 122 [123] 124 125