|
It's terribly boring. I'm "the communications and hardware guy" (quoted because it's informal and I still do anything that must be done) and there are months where I have to implement all the new hardware communications and interfaces. After a month my productivity falls... to thep oint I start losing confidence in my abilites. Then an emergency arises and I solve it in record time - basically doing the same kind of work over and over dulls me to the point of uselessness.
Also vertical works are always clunky, integrated and customzed environments work better - that's why in manifacturing plants verticalization is very loose and broad and the systems are basically ad-hoc solutions with nothing similar to layers, they are more like interconnected clouds of components which try to expose the same interfaces. They usually are more flexible, at the cost of greater complexity in the system.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
There's that famous saying: "Coding's more fun when your horizontal"... something like that anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I usually warn if something is outside my main area of expertise but stop against nothing. In 4 years I did VB6, C++, Assembler, C# and C++\CLI.
If soemone asks me C# things I clearly state that I have very little experience in C#, especially good C# (nobody uses it where I work and we have no code base in C#). Then I start working on it.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I do that too. "Sure, I can have a look at it, but it's all new to me. So if it's in a hurry..." something like that 
But just saying "no, I don't do that." is a no-no.
I'm not sure how the guy I just mentioned could've put his incapability into words though, we'd have to invent some new words 
|
|
|
|
|
No C#?
poor you...
Anyhow I am not too worry, you seemed to have fun too! 
|
|
|
|
|
Embedded real time systems need performances, to the point that I (being the only Assembler speaking member in the office) sometimes spend weeks optimizing highly used features like rotations, color change vectors appliacations, integer differentiations and so on.
Also it all started in QBASIC some 25 years ago, ported in VB6 and C. The total codebase is estimated in the millions of line of code and we still have to support some old Win2k system. Our developement workstations are painfully slow and rigged with 80 GB HDD and a whopping 1 GB of RAM...
In short there are only reason to NOT migrate to .NET. We will move the graphic interface only to C# and maybe WPF but first we need to move the core elaborations and part of the hardware management away from the interface (bad design, legacy design, PITA to change).
Also all those modifications will work for the future, meaning we will have to support our current branches (over 300) for 10-15 years at the very least.
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
When I was six, there were no ones and zeroes - only zeroes. And not all of them worked. -- Ravi Bhavnani
|
|
|
|
|
A person's actions should always weigh more than their words.
Sander Rossel wrote: I punch them in the face
Somehow, I don't believe this. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree with you *punches you in the face* 
Alright, I don't really punch people in the face, but not because I don't want too.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I met this guy...
We are talking building blocks or black boxes which can be plugged into each other once they have been made to do their individual function.
It makes sense for rapid development but, as you say, no one gets to see the full picture.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
The more parts and pieces a machine has, the greater the chance for failure at any given point.
I am highly-against overly complex architectures and designs. I have never seen one live up to the sales pitch, and they have been nothing but a nightmare to maintain.
KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID (KISS)
|
|
|
|
|
100%. I concur.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Over the years I've learned the following enterprise patterns:
The postpone pattern: useful when decisions need to be made.
The we-will-get-back-to-you pattern: useful for when they don't want to get back to you.
The clueless pattern: very widely adopted in the enterprise!
The outdated pattern: because keeping up-to-date with technology requires decisions and a fraction of the money it costs in the long run to not update.
The XML pattern: because deep down XML is the only technology that's really enterprise ready. XML everywhere. XML 4 teh win!
The save-pennies pattern: the other patterns cost millions, but when you're an hour over budget they'll have your head in a meeting (which costs even more).
The meetings-meetings-meetings pattern: to discuss the issues that arise because of the other patterns (only discuss, never solve though!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You left out the hurry-up-and-wait pattern: your boss presses you really hard to get things in a test-ready state in two weeks only to find that the test team can't get to it for another two weeks 
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot one...
"The Stupid Manager" pattern, where if they can place an incompetent in charge of a project, they will...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am currently involved in a large scale application - creating a reporting warehouse environment for a segment of our organization. The end result will be that ALL of the data needed for reporting will be available in SQL Server databases. Since I'm not working on the DB part, I can't comment on the number of databases or their complexity.
What I do like about the project is this: I have my section I am responsible for: get data from the system I work on into 10 minutes buckets and exception buckets. That's it... I do my part and my part only. I will provide the general structure of the SQL statements needed to pull the data, but I am not responsible for the implementation of that.
So, can it work? Yes, if management provides a reasonable time frame and assigns resources to attend to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Truly no offense meant but as a "full stack" developer that sounds like hell to me. I left my last career because it became like that - a largely restricted sense of creativity and license in my daily activity.
It does sound a bit like a "9 to 5" punch in, punch out mentality - which I'll admit can have its upsides.
|
|
|
|
|
No offense taken... I have been a 'full stack' developer, but for this project, no thank you. The project will take upwards of a year to fully implement and I am busy enough with just my portion of it.
For smaller items, I still function in 'full stack' mode - but within my realm of influence. I don't miss being the de facto DBA and have no desire to go back to that environment.
My day tends to be 7:00 to 3:30 or 4:00 or 5:00 depending on meetings, conference calls, remote support, etc... but I am at the point in my career where I've done the on-call 24x365 and don't miss that either.
|
|
|
|
|
The bank I work for is just starting the reverse engineering of a major rule based engine, definitely enterprisy! Thankfully I won't be coding in the project as there are a whole plethora of technologies being chucked into the mix.
Data storage is Hadoop with a couple or 4 management packages/applications then MariaDb with another couple of apps to manage that. UI in Java, service layer in TibCo each with another couple of apps/packages to help manage them.
I've probably missed a couple. To say I'm horrified is an understatement but it seems to be the way enterprisey architecture is put together. I probably won't be around to see the outcome but I don't think it will be good.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: I've probably missed a couple. To say I'm horrified is an understatement but it seems to be the way enterprisey architecture is put together. I probably won't be around to see the outcome but I don't think it will be good.
Haha! 
|
|
|
|
|
The user requirement by it leads/forces you to have enterprisey architecture. You might see a repetition from project to projects so at the end some modules goes to services other goes to library and so on and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
It is useful to be able to fully implement a feature. Every developer has their strengths and weaknesses.
On larger projects, or projects that have a specialist component (e.g. a graphics engine, or an analytics engine) specialization may be inevitable.
Specialization may also be desirable if you want to get the best possible solution in a given problem area.
The key to remember is that developers have interfaces between them just as much as the components they work on. To manage those interfaces properly and to mitigate risks you will need good specifications, standards and procedures.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
