Hacker News Reader

Comment by ronaldx | Hacker News Reader

Having a central body which sets government digital policy on how to provide information across departments is great.

That they're doing a fantastic job of providing content to users efficiently, using appropriate technology and without favouring commercial solutions, is incredible.

Compare the clusterfuck that is http://www.cyberstreetwise.com. Contracted-out websites cannot match the quality and cost effectiveness.

I downvoted you because it's really very difficult to understand what you are actually complaining about: you are trolling.

View on HN

The criticism that I've seen recently was due to their choice of Go to implement a router to pass requests to the right back end application. According to their blog post this replaced a previous router written in Scala which nobody really understood. I think they received some criticism for being too quick to pick up fashionable new technologies which then had to be replaced because they were unmaintanable (the scala router).

The poster you're replying to is being very vague though, and I think the downvotes are probably deserved in that case. Either give concrete examples of why you dislike the way someone's doing something, or don't post.

That is the primary example I'm referring to recently.

There are many more. I'll write them up at some point.

I'm not trolling. I've watched them build their own stack, throw it away, build it again, throw it away. That's waste.

That is experimentation. Experimentation is a necessity and is a cornerstone of a good design. Don't you agree?

Yes and no. Some notes:

* Experimentation doesn't make it into production twice unless you're doing something wrong.

* There are proven solutions off the shelf both open source and commercial.

* They should be value driven rather than innovation driven. We aren't paying them to be a research agency.

* There is an ongoing maintenance cost and in-house only knowledge when you do an NIH job of something. That is not efficient.

It would be even more wasteful to build a stack, then even if it didn't work / new features needed to be added / old cruft needed to be removed / new devices and services need to be supported, just keep using and developing that stack.

It's called agile development, and it lets them respond quickly and efficiently to changes in requirements / mission.

See also: Facebook, Twitter, most other tech companies.

That's fine but the first iterations were because they fucked the requirements up. Regardless of Agile/not, due diligence when selecting products or deciding to write them is required.

Requirements, especially in government, will change quite quickly whatever you do, so I'd argue that fast agile development is more beneficial and cost-effective than slower development cycles.

Can you expand? Can you give an example of requirements changing quickly or frequently in government? Given that they're constrained mostly by budget and legislation I'd argue the opposite.

That notwithstanding, I'd also be very interested to know how agile is a panacea to fast-changing requirements, especially as opposed to techniques such as designing for change (at the architectural level, so not just the implementation level, i.e. loose coupling, encapsulation and abstraction interfaces).

How close are you to these guys? When you say "I've watched them build their own stack", are you referring to having read some blog posts, or do you know them personally?

The money that the fairly small team are spending is a drop in the ocean compared to many government funded projects. If you want to get angry about misspent public funds, I can think of countless other areas that are orders of magnitude worse. The reality is that a small team of people directly employed by the government working fairly effectively can build and discard their stack as many times as they want and still be significantly cheaper than getting a big company to do it.

I watch github, I watch their blog, I read interviews, I get the picture.

It's my job to look at dysfunctional teams both from a technology and a process perspective. I've seen teams like this many times before. They are expensive, inefficient and the return is considerably lower than the investment has promised.

Just because the historic approaches are worse doesn't exclude these guys from scrutiny. They'll quite happily piss £40k of dev cost up the wall while other departments are arguing over £200 ultrasounds for cancer patients. Scrutiny must be universal and unforgiving.

So long answer, short, you don't know.

I've not been watching them closely, but they are delivering, which seems an extremely strong indication they're not dysfunctional at all.

Every now and then I end up on a gov site they've redone and it's immediately obvious they've had at it because it's easy to use, responsive, etc.

You're sounding like one of those pointy haired bosses that don't understand that good developers play to succeed, and it doesn't always pay off. But if you stop them you end up with crap because the good people leave.

Got to say it sounds like you were pretty far away too, but the page loads quick so it is ok they redeveloped the stack with Ruby, Scala, Go, and when they get bored and want to learn Elixir or Erlang, maybe they rewrite it again. After all, it is only our taxes paying for it.

Sounds more like a pointy haired boss to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com