110
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
110 points (94.4% liked)
Programming
17691 readers
227 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is exactly the situation. Except that my team consisting of consultants just "started", instead of trying to scope out the constraints and larger picture. I joined a month or so after.
Six months, and the result so far of their exploration is a fairly uninteresting happy-path use of some technologies, barely related to the task that had unclear requirements. Turns out the work done is unsuited for it. Boggles the mind how much resources are wasted on such things.
Feels extremely unrewarding to have worked, relatively hard, for half a year, and the fruits of my labour is... getting to the point where the actual problems are solved. Which one could have done from day one, if one had started in a team without wrong preconceptions, or, no team, for that matter.
Yeah I would not like that situation at all. I was very adamant about not starting our latest project until we had firm requirements. Of course that didn't happen but I was very careful about designing in a way to be flexible enough to change to requirements. Had a major change halfway through but only lost a week or two which could've been much worse.
Only losing a week on a major change is a good sign. I wish the people who started the project had that same attitude with regards to clarifying requirements. They also did the opposite of designing a flexible solution. No thought to the actual problem, picking a contrived problem to "tackle". Full on blinders on event driven architecture, split a simple thing into multiple nano-services, yet tightly coupled by sharing the same model which is de/serialized at every step, and then throw in application level filtering on the events... no schemas, no semantic versioning.