Timeline for Should there be a formal role (internal or external) assigned to dev environments to control wasteful complexity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2013 at 11:08 | vote | accept | user104662 | ||
| Oct 31, 2013 at 10:10 | vote | accept | user104662 | ||
| Nov 5, 2013 at 11:08 | |||||
| Oct 13, 2013 at 22:01 | comment | added | Andreas Huppert | Because it is possible to sell investment into a platform/framework as investment with a good ROI to management. Refactoring has much less glamour and is hard to sell. | |
| Oct 13, 2013 at 14:39 | comment | added | Aaronaught | @AndreasHuppert: I certainly agree that management needs to understand the idea of refactoring and that teams can't have 100% of their time committed to new features - for well-run teams, that figure should be more like 20% or even lower, the rest being occupied by planning, testing, code reviews, automation, refactoring, debugging, etc., and of course the usual overhead and interruptions. But I'm not sure if I agree that a lack of time is what leads to these horrible inner platforms. If a team doesn't even have time to refactor, where could it possibly find the time for those? | |
| Oct 13, 2013 at 12:41 | comment | added | Andreas Huppert | Good answer. I'd like to add bullet point 4.: you will need a management which allows the other roles (1-3) to pay back technical debt. This will speed up development in the current releases because 1-3 know they can refactor later as needed. If management always uses up all available ressources for new features, architects and developers are pushed towards inventing flexible frameworks which try to solve all potential future problems. That is nearly impossible and creates the problems described by the original author. | |
| Oct 12, 2013 at 13:05 | history | edited | Aaronaught | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 1182 characters in body |
| Oct 12, 2013 at 12:55 | history | answered | Aaronaught | CC BY-SA 3.0 |