Hacker News Reader

I find Microsoft's 5 Pillars in their Well-Formed Architecture to be a useful way to explain this to non-technical people.

At the start of a project, fully focusing on your features makes sense. But as a project grows, non-functional concerns can sabotage the business model if not addressed.

- Reliability

- Security

- Cost optimization

- Performance Efficiency

- Operational Excellence

The first four have a direct impact on the customer. Buggy or insecure software, or excess costs, will all affect the customer directly.

The fifth point is about devops, and making sure that we can continuously (as a process) meet the customer's needs in all of these areas.

I've found that if I can fit refactoring into one of these pillars, it is much easier to explain to non-technical people. Of course, some people just can't be helped, and aren't open to alternate ways to think about software projects.

CatB is a fine book. That feels like such add choice for the situation, aside from just seeing if the person was willing to engage with ideas within software.

I'm curious what texts people would suggest for a non-developer to get some insight.

The ones that come to my mind are the Mythical Man Month, Peopleware, Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering by Glass, or maybe even the 1968 NATO report on software engineering.

Every now and then I have to ask my PM at work "If I give you a second copy of the Mythical Man Month, could you read it twice as fast"?

He doesn't like that question, but it does get the point across

I’m stealing that quote for my own purposes. I hope you don’t mind.

What you really need to do is schedule daily status meetings, a longer weekly status meeting, and -- this is the real velocity trick -- monthly OKR reviews as well as quarterly slide presentations.

It's important the slide deck be polished for all the people who want to come learn about the project, so it makes sense to spend at least a month preparing it.

And the neat thing is that all this work will get you lots of suggestions from executives about how you could address all the velocity issues that your project seems to have all the time! So you'd better budget 2-4 weeks after the presentation to follow up, have stakeholder meetings, and make sure everyone really feels heard.

With just these few simple techniques, you too can get your engineers moving at the blinding speed of an average FAANG engineering team.

6 years ago I gave a C-level guy a fresh copy of Perform or Else[0] on my way out. I don't know if he even read it.

[0]: https://www.routledge.com/Perform-or-Else-From-Discipline-to...

I followed the link and -- $180 for the hardcover? wat.

Agree, I bought the paperback.

Whatever it is, it should be as short as possible.

> CatB is a fine book.

Holy shit, THAT'S why Eric Raymonds website is catb.org. How did I never realize it was the abbreviation of the book title?

I have a meta question here, am always curious when seemingly competent engineer such as yourself put up with this kind of management.

It is unbearable to work for someone who doesn't appreciate your work let alone belittles truly hard-earned achievements, for example that statement when he demanded you get 4000% rather than 2000% that you achieved would have made me quit on the spot.

Further from the sounds of it this sounds like a random finance company and with your skills you could have easily walked into any tech/finance company so I am curious why you remained at this company and didn't quit sooner?

Not OP, but I worked for a similar founder. The only work he wanted software engineers to do was writing code, and not just that... only 1. code that added a customer visible feature or 2. code that fixed a major, customer-facing bug that a customer actually complained about. Fixes for bugs not discovered by customers? No. Performance improvements? No, not even visible ones. Refactorings? No. Technical debt cleanup? No. Build speedups? No. Update the code to work on a recent compiler? No. It gets better! Version control? No. Bug tracker? No. Unit tests? No. I had to implement the above three on my free time. Standing up dedicated build and test infrastructure? LOL get real. Eventually, I was able to argue for a few of these, but it was always a fight.

The reason I stayed was that the hiring market is not always that great, and it tends to be much harder to find a new job than HN would have you believe. This idea that most of us can simply "walk into any" company and get a job is fiction in all but the hottest job markets.

I don't understand these kinds of leadership/management. What they want clearly isn't a tech company. They don't want technical wisdom, insight, nor vision. Why bother hiring in-house SWE's at all?

They should just stick with consultants and contactors.

Keeping it slightly abstract because enough people can figure out company/time/place from what I wrote…

I had something to accomplish before I left. I made a mark in the niche we were operating in. Beyond that I’m reluctant to be more specific.

I guess as CTO you're already at the top, but if the owner thinks you're doing bad work and you have to fight for resources despite meeting reasonable goals, what's the actual payoff working there? You'd be paddling upstream forever, I can't imagine the owner would agree to bonuses or promotions, and I'd reasonably expect the owner would be looking for a replacement CTO at the end of that.

"put the donkey, where the owner of the donkey wants you to put the donkey" - egyptian proverb

i dont know how much money this company was making, and why it couldnt invest in both backend and client facing communications

but, on the other hand, being client focused and continuously delivering client facing feature, might be the thing that keeps the revenu streams coming

in other words, i used to always take the dev side in stories like this, but overtime i learn to be more sympathetic to the clients, i have been in situations where the devs overestimated the value of cleaner architecture, its a financial service, not a software company, i think the real solution would have been to completely outsource the software development

I think you are both right.

But I don't think GP was ignoring clients. If anything, he was doing what those clients wanted by moving to containers and a cloud architecture. And I say that as someone that doesn't like those things.

I've never seen outsourcing of a company's core product result in anything but litigation. If a team legitimately made a 2000% leap in throughput and it wasn't just from manipulating metrics, and then that still wasn't good enough then nothing will be satisfactory in the eyes of that owner, you rightfully should give up that battle and find greener pastures. Expecting someone to come in and wave a magic wand of 4000% productivity is absurd. Expecting that you can outsource that sort of demand is plain stupid.

There are a lot of managers who believe you should always put a squeeze on devs and keep the org in constant panic mode. Nothing will ever be good enough. If you achieve one goal, you get hit with another crazy deadline. It never ends.

> but, on the other hand, being client focused and continuously delivering client facing feature, might be the thing that keeps the revenu streams coming

I firmly reject this. If you can't build quality then you don't deserve to be in business

I'm so sick of the fact that everyone is ok accepting "just barely passable"

It has lead to everything new being built is crap. New housing is crap, new furniture is crap, new software is crap

I get that building nice things is expensive and takes time, but I want to live in a world of nice things instead of this constant race to the bottom, produce endless quantities of crap world that we are in right now

Doesn't anyone else feel like we're being crushed under all this crap we're building?

I do get frustrated with the state of modern software, but often times the comparison ends up being between a crappy version of something or nothing at all.

One of the major problems is that many of our core software assumptions were based on design decisions made decades ago, when the industry was young and figuring out a million details.

I've mostly done web dev, but recently was trying out IMGUI and was amazed by the tiny memory footprint and with how quickly it started. But even that system has limitations, requiring that you learn a bunch of details for targeting different platforms. Isn't it amazing that native cross platform development is still so difficult in 2024? The platform owners could so a lot to ease this burden, but everyone wants their own little fiefdom.

> The platform owners could so a lot to ease this burden, but everyone wants their own little fiefdom.

The thing is that most people use one platform. So the owners try to present one consistent view on how to use that platform. Trying to provide a common paradigm across platform is the goal of companies that love their brands too much. But as a user, I just want for everything to function similarly so I don't have to read a manual for each app. I've done Android dev and dabbled in iOS, but now I'd only recommend React Native if what you want can be a web app, but you want the extra UI performance and some native features. If you want something more complex or consistent, go native.

I don't know where this idea came from that an application should look and feel exactly the same across Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, Android, and so on. I have encountered this attitude in more than one company, but have not heard of any actual customer who wants this. As an actual computer user, the worst applications tend to be the ones that stick out like a sore thumb by ignoring OS conventions and using custom-drawn controls with nonstandard behavior.

> I'm so sick of the fact that everyone is ok accepting "just barely passable"

Isn't everyone ok with that by the definition of "passable"?

"Just barely passable" is the endless customer support carousel, the nickel-and-diming of airline fees, the addition of more and more ad space and cloned-content spam to web pages, and automobiles that spy on you to sell the data to marketers.

But if we updated our standards such that we no longer accept those things, they would no longer be passable, and something else would be "just barely passable".

My point - inasmuch as there was a serious one - wasn't that we shouldn't raise our standards but that the framing isn't particularly helpful in determining whether we should (while rhetorically sounding like it is).

I have learned over the years that there are different types of devs. Some are ok with cranking out features without regard for overall architecture and can handle the chaos of constant quick fixes over previous quick fixes. There are others (like me) who like well designed systems and get stressed when they are asked to just crank out features without regard for the overall system.

Personally I believe that my approach achieves higher velocity over time because the guys who just do quick bandaid fixes get bogged down over time with technical debt. But not everybody agrees.

I definitely think you need to know where you are on that spectrum and find an org that fits your style. Otherwise you are in for constant pain and unhappiness.

People love to be the hero that swoops in and saves the day. From the hot mess they created the past year.

Every situation is different, and sometimes it's prudent to write a kludge to fix something now, while other times it's more prudent to take your time developing a long term solution. There's even the middle ground of monkey patch now, long term solution later.

I would argue that a well rounded developer will have the capacity to write kludges when necessary, and long term solutions when necessary. Now, if your boss repeatedly asks you to write the code one way and you are always disagreeing with them, then that would be a good reason to find another job. But if you trust your boss, you'll write the code however they ask, even if it's not your natural preference.

long term, companies that operate like this are better off paying for third party services that handle the more technical details that they aren't interested in managing. these are the target customers for managed infra services like heroku, fly, and such (or more task-specific services like pack digital). imo if you get into heavy technical requirements territory, the leadership has to re-assess their priorities or risk drowning the org in tech debt.

Regulation. Regulation. Regulation.

The software world is coming under more and more of it because our magic incantations affect the real world and peoples lives.

>New housing is crap, new furniture is crap, new software is crap

Old housing was crap, old furniture was crap, and old software was crap, you are letting survivorship bias bite you too much and you're losing focus of the forest for the trees.

> its a financial service, not a software company

I have no experience in the financial industry, but I work in a field which is also highly regulated (medical devices). Failure to pass audits or be otherwise compliant to regulation can very much make the difference between having or not having any business at all.

Paying of decades worth of debt in a few month where clients see no shiny new features was likely more and better service than that founder-CEO type deserved.

I'm also in medical devices and I had the same reaction. "If you're out of Compliance, you're out of business."

It's a classic problem - there are some people who know exactly what they are talking about and you should trust them, and there are some people who just sound like they know what they're talking about and you should absolutely NOT trust them.

See Honey the Bear's "Metagame" hypothesis. https://adriantchaikovsky.com/dogs-of-war-series.html#anchor...

This puts me in mind of a home owner on one of those renovations shows where the workers discover a structural flaw mid way through the job, and explain this means they don't have as much in the budget now for added features.

The equivalent of the boss in this story would demand to leave the structural issues unaddressed to keep the marble counter tops in the budget, and then the house would cave in a year later.

I think that was a good move by the senior engineer. In part because I've done something similar and want to believe it's the right thing to do.

Did it change anything? Did the founder manage to keep things going?

That reminds me of one case, where an author of software saw any improvement or genuine feedback as a personal attack - directed at him and his "legacy". Can't go into specifics, but only features directly or indirectly praising the original software were allowed. I was student/intern at the time and learned about that the hard way.

Still, one of most important teaching moment to this day.

Would it be ethical in a situation like this to hide all the technical improvements and just show the increased speed of client facing delivery?

Seems like everyone would be happier.

Using the word "hide" in any scenario should immediately get your spidey-sense tingling.

I'm always telling my developers to stop talking to the customer about technical details.

Do you think carpenters talk to their customers about types of nails and dimensional lumber? Or they talk curves, size, and color?

It works in everyone’s favour. Founder got what his culture sets out to build. Customer got their features faster. Senior engineer clearly knows it is not the place for him and moved on. Everyone wins.

Probably feature development slowed to a crawl over a few years. Code debt isn't actually an abstract thing, it's just hard to explain to non-coders the thousand little slowdowns it injects into every project.

What I meant was the founder got what he asked for. Short term gain at the expense of sustainability. It is a feature rather than a bug. For a company looking for product market fit, "good code" might take a back seat. Andy Grove mentioned that an executive job is to, paraphrased, maintain the company culture. His context was about larger established companies. But I think the point still holds. It is the founder's job to sell his vision to his employees. It is the market's job to determine whether such vision thrives.

This is blatant conservatism, and it's a mentality which leads to dead players. The job of an executive is to make good decisions; it's in the name: execut-ive. To decide always in the direction of the existent culture is a very peculiar bias which is only successful in certain situations.

A friend calls it the Logjam Principle. There are always a few logs floating down the river and that's not really a problem. But a small logjam of just a few logs will grow over time until the entire river is obstructed. It's better not to let things get to that state.

Not sure about that, that senior engineer leaving likely led to feature development severely slowing down.

> Customer got their features faster.

Did they though?

Ahh yes, reading this as an SRE. This is the average Ops team experience, having to find ways to prove that we're not a cost center (I cut out AWS bill down 40% last year migrating to ARM64) because your work isn't blasted on the front page of a product changelog.

And things... "just work," Until they don't. And they did because of the front loaded work we did correctly to keep things working.

> Senior engineer gave him a copy of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, just to share something that could lead to some kind of common vocabulary. Founder spent weekend marking up his copy and on Monday

I'd quite like to read those markings. Do you have them?

Shouldn't the free market drive companies with these type of leaders down ? They should become swamped by the faster more agile competitors?

But sadly, it seems the inertia keeps some pretty ignorant organizations functioning for decades.

The problem is that the free market only really works when all information is available to all parties and there's low switching cost. So it works decently for commodities, but no business ever wants to sell a commodity. In fact most business advice I've seen is about how to get away from selling commodified products into a free market and instead sell opaquely differentiated products to a locked-in market with high switching costs and barriers to entry.

Peter Thiel: "Competition is for losers."

Perhaps, but there is nothing free market about financial services.

Yes. This is why you should immediately start interviewing when you observe this kind of behavior coming from management.

Eventually, yes. Unless they sell to another company and the technical debt goes into the trash with the company's product.

On the other hand, "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent."

What is The Cathedral and the Bazaar about? I couldn't quite tell from a cursory glance.

Disclaimer: been a while since I read it.

It compares two software development styles. It compares typical software dev in a company to building a cathedral: directions come from on high, and you execute your task.

Then it compares typical Open Source development, such as with the Linux kernel, and compares it to a bazaar: everyone is doing their own thing, but somehow, things get done.

It's old, and maybe a little outdated now that the corporate world has taken over Open Source, but I would still suggest reading it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

Yea, but I guess I was looking for something deeper, because at the outset, I'd be a little offput by the suggestion to read it and any disagreement about my disagreement on it. And I fully understand the issues described by the above parent. The book comes off as a bit opinionated with the blinders of a Linux kernel development and 80-90s attitude about open source software. That's a pretty narrow focus of software development.

For example:

> Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch.

I've written good software professionally, but none of it was kickstarted by my own personal itch.

How did you measure velocity?

count(work unit) / count(intervals)

Story points are unitless. Therefore story point velocity is measured in the inverse of time.

Are you saying that velocity hurts?

Only when you hit a hard deadline.

So, with... frequency?