|
I've spent about ten times as much of my working hours adapting to new development tools as I should have. Especially when I was employed at a large research institute: Every new project replaced half of the tools in the toolbox, and we worked slowly and inefficiently for half of the project time, because we hadn¨t learned to use the tools properly yet.
That is the major reason why I resist whenever someone suggests that we should replace this tool with that tool, this language with that language, this document format with that format,...
Obviously, the cost of change is much smaller if you just upgrade to the next version (or the next after that, or after that again), but is still is far from "free". Like, last time we upgraded our build server system to a newer version, it took two full days to migrate all the old, archived builds to the format of the new version. For that reason, we have not yet adopted the next major version, and before we adopt the recently released new version afte that, we will do a thorough cleanup in our build archives to try to reduce the offline time for the build servers to less than 24 hours.
If you have a real need for the functionality in the new version (whether hardware or software), a good boss ought to listen to you. But lots of upgrades are primarily justified by the developers feeling inferior when using old versions, not a real need.
|
|
|
|
|
I just go out and buy the tools myself. Sometimes I even submit the expense and dare them to justify not reimbursing me.
After years and years of working for companies that made it seem that you needed CEO approval to buy a box of paperclips, while they gallivanted around the country on the company dime to attend one conference or another, I decided my development lifetime is too limited to submit to their whims.
Since I am willing to pay for the tools out of my own pocket without a guarantee of reimbursement, I make the point that I am not a kid in a candy store buying anything that strikes my fancy. If I am willing to risk my own money, I must feel it is necessary.
I've had to deal with bean counters who would seem to be telling me, that while that piece of software may save me weeks of development, they still see that they had to pay me for those weeks anyway and now they have to add the cost of the software to their expenses. Productivity does not seem show up on the bottom line.
Companies don't seem to be interested in saving time, but if you can save them money, they listen. Several times I've saved the company money by having the tools to get something done so they didn't have to go out and buy a solution from someone else.
Psychosis at 10
Film at 11
Those who do not remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Those who do not remember the past, cannot build upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
BrainiacV wrote: Since I am willing to pay for the tools out of my own pocket without a guarantee of reimbursement
That did not work for me.. I have license for those products but company doesn't want me to use them. I have it installed on my home machine for my pet projects.
Zen and the art of software maintenance : rm -rf *
Math is like love : a simple idea but it can get complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
virang_21 wrote: Your company don't want to invest in new development tools ?
I don't understand the question.
I write programs intended to run on target machines. The tools that I need are dependent on those target machines.
So are you claiming that everyone in the company is running on a super computer? And that everyone has migrated to .Net 4.5 except you?
virang_21 wrote: some decent third party tools like Telerik or DevExpress but so far it goes deaf
ear.
Because these tools would be a net positive investment for the company? So in terms of initial cost, plus service support, plus licensing versus your salary and your productivity the company would save how much money in a year? In five?
virang_21 wrote: I am at the point where I feel like I need to move on to some better workplace
:sad:
Perhaps. Or perhaps seek a better perspective on what is important in terms of work versus play. As one example would you be happy with VS2012 at a company where your paycheck bounced every single time and/or you had to 'hold' on to your paycheck until the funds 'cleared' at the bank before you could deposit it?
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: So are you claiming that everyone in the company is running on a super computer? And that everyone has migrated to .Net 4.5 except you?
Not really... All I am saying is development machines should be better specked than normal machines just to access some web based applications to run day to day business
jschell wrote: Because these tools would be a net positive investment for the company?
It will definitely cut down some development time to deliver projects lot faster than otherwise. It will give applications a professional look and feel with more functionality. ( How easily can you do grouping and filtering on normal grid control v/s those third party tools ? .. That is just one example when you talk about value for money...IF company is making millions in profit they should make some investment in new technology...
)
Zen and the art of software maintenance : rm -rf *
Math is like love : a simple idea but it can get complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
virang_21 wrote: It will definitely cut down some development time to deliver projects lot faster
than otherwise.
So prove that to management.
virang_21 wrote: It will give applications a professional look and feel with more functionality.
Presuming that is even important in terms of delivery. After all if the point of the app is for in house use it doesn't matter if it looks "professional". And depending on the product that might not matter for the customer market either. However in terms of the customer market then the simple solution is to prove to marketing and sales that it is better then they, not the developer, will be asking for it.
virang_21 wrote: That is just one example when you talk about value for money...IF company is
making millions in profit they should make some investment in new technology...
Pretty sure I already addressed that point in the previous response.
|
|
|
|
|
software developers have an obligation to quit and move on. it's for the good of the industry and the "brotherhood" of software developers in general. by helping a "low baller" company stay in business like that, you are subsidizing the company at your expense and the expense of the "brotherhood". you are negatively affecting your own career by not keeping up with technology and you are helping to stagnate the economy. if the company can't afford to use reasonable and adequate technology for development - it's likely they have a bad and unsustainable business model anyway. find a better environment where you can develop your skills at a more rapid pace, and then jump ship.
David
|
|
|
|
|
etkins wrote: if the company can't afford to use reasonable and adequate technology for development - it's likely they have a bad and unsustainable business model anyway
Nonsense.
All mid size and larger companies must deal with the fact that infrastructure investment must continue but that doesn't mean every single thing in the company must be upgraded every single time something new comes out. Companies that do that go out of business, and very likely fail to deliver anything as well.
And they also must deal with the fact that their business partners and customers do exactly the same thing. That is why, for example, that companies don't roll out products that support only the newest browser or OS. And why they often roll out products that support browsers\OSes that are no longer even being supported.
More over it is often the case that one might need to deal with even very old software. I know for a fact that there are places out there that still run cash register software on Windows 95 (given that I saw the start up screen on Friday night.) It would be surprised if there were not Windows 3.1 apps running out there.
Professional developers do not exist to play with toys. They do exist to help a company make money. Given that customer service is often a factor in company delivery then one might be tasked with providing support for something that is very old. And professionals must provide value to the company.
For those that think their job should be nothing but a venue for the exploration of the universe then they should stay out of the professional realm and keep puttering around at night in their parents basement.
etkins wrote: find a better environment where you can develop your skills at a more rapid pace,
Skills such as process control, project management, requirements gathering, architecture and system design perhaps.
Real skills.
Skills which have a real payback and which do not require the latest toy to be successful in.
|
|
|
|
|
Those are fluffy soft skills. I am talking about more difficult technical skills.
Seemed to have struck a nerve with you. I have been doing this stuff for over 20 years and I always consider myself a student.
There's nothing wrong with using older languages like Ada, Tcl/Tk, because they are still very relevant today. But the developer should be trying to leverage these tools on more cutting edge platforms.
Get on the train before it leaves the station and leaves you behind.
Companies like IBM buy up really old tool suites and try to maintain them, and that's why they are going down the toilet like a big turd.
~d~
|
|
|
|
|
I've just finished reading this[^]. Oh how I wish he really did write it.
|
|
|
|
|
Good read and yes it would make a great exit speech and an even better one for the person that will be taking the reins.
|
|
|
|
|
The first iPhone shipped in 2007, and we still don't have a product in mobility that is close to their experience. Unbelievable.
Something to post on the walls of windows Phone dev teams there.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Their experience?
Well, my 5 year old likes the iPhone.
My wife, on the other hand, kept hers for 1 day before heading back to the store to trade it in on an S3.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think Ballmer (or anyone on Microsoft for that matter) would have written something like this, because this memo accepts defeat, which is highly uncommon for Microsoft.
|
|
|
|
|
You did see the title of the thread didn't you?
|
|
|
|
|
I was browsing PC magazines at WHS this evening and the somewhat trashy weekly called MicroMart had a reference to cutting printer cartridge costs, "It's worth looking at Asda and Tesco when your printer runs out of ink. Both shops sell do-it-yourself kits that can be used to refill cartridges five or six times."
Has anyone successfully refilled ink cartridges? Any comments about print quality and whether they're value for money?
I saw a couple of YouTube videos showing the procedure and one showed how you replace the chip but that seems to be optional. Do these kits automatically include the chips as I suppose you'd need to buy ones compatible with your make of cartridge?
My cartridges (for some funny reason) always "run out" way ahead of printer usage which is no more than a few pages a month if that.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
Used to do it, as HP cartridges were, are and likely will always be obscenely priced. This was many years ago before I said, "Elephant this, I'm buying a laser printer!"
Back then, I don't think there was a chip in the cartridge that kept count. I could refill 2-3 times before the print head started to lose quality. If all you do is print a little now and then, I'd look at a cheap laser. Of course, most of my stuff is just b/w.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
SeptimusEjjog 151576 wrote: My cartridges (for some funny reason) always "run out" way ahead of printer usage which is no more than a few pages a month if that.
Not funny, just built that way. The printer companies are living off of King Gillette's model these days[1].
I've refilled in the past. No need to update the chip, it's usually (for inkjet) a case of drill a small hole, then use a syringe to refill it. Much cheaper and quality is the same (at least as far as I could tell).
I haven't done it in a while as I've moved off of inkjet. I think I spent more time refilling than actually using the printer.
[1] Yes, he didn't invent that marketing strategy[^], but he is the most notable early user of it.
--------------
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
As somewhat of an expert in such things...
Refilling cartridges is fine, as is buying 'compatibles' so long as it is for personal use or kids homework or the like.
In a professional setting I would advise against it.
The ink tends to be thinner and more prone to spatter.
Also the heads wear out over time or clog and render things rather messy.
Oddly enough, this tends to be less of a problem with laser toner.
I supply original and compatible toners and the price difference is substantial.
The compatibles are made by Xerox but white boxed. The quality is almost as good and I would recommend them for most uses.
(I would suggest that for HIGH quality uses, such as graphic design or architectural drawings etc to stick with originals).
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: I supply original and compatible toners
Are you trying to get DD banned?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, DD. I've been toying with the idea of getting a laser printer to replace my inkjet. Our old HP printer at work has been complaining that we need to replace the toner for about three months but it keeps on printing and printing. 
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
|
I fitted my printer with one of these kits from Melco[^]. It was quite fiddly to get the ink flowing and the tubes positioned so as not to jam, but it worked fine after a (fairly extended) setup period.
My printer has been in storage since we moved house (only 10 months!) so I expect I'll have to go through a similar amount of cocking about to get it working again.
|
|
|
|
|
You have a printer!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Are you trying to get DD banned?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. But it irks me that the cost of cartridges for my Kodak ESP far outweighs the usage I get from them.
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
