Quality software meets its requirements. Both functional and non-functional. Of course our industry still cannot quantify non-functional requirements, or discover a way to predictably implement functional requirements.
So all that remains for our so called “engineering” discipline, is an answer that says something that doesn't break a lot.
All I see is disgusting popups - “k-ll j——“, “r-pe n——“ Very upsetting, no thanks to you.
Who wants that on their web site? In some jurisdictions you’re going to be in trouble for facilitating hate and calls for violence (or worse). This is why what you have implemented will not work in its current form. I suggest you move to a system that characters can trigger only standard phrases and emoticons.
Frankly I’m sad to hear it. There are just too many programmers - simple.
30 years ago or so, I was a contractor working on back-to-back 3 to 12 month C++ projects. I would typically get a call one day from a recruiter followed by a phone call (or maybe a quick meet or coffee) with someone technical on the project, and arrive and be in the codebase the next. That day I would get 2 calls about my availability.
There was no sh*t-show of continuous deployment, code reviews (even for trusted internal projects), and scrum-like ceremonies. There was instead version control, periodic tested releases, a weekly update meeting, a Friday team lunch at the pub, and trust.
Too many programmers (sorry err Engineers) - too few jobs, and the enshitification of an industry.
What concerns me the most is that improvements in software design are at an end. The “big ball of mud”, which really is a problem of modularity and dependencies, will never improve through innovation because the way it is done now is all there will ever be.
Email them because most people these days never receive a personal email from another real human being, instead of newsletters, solicitations, marketing, announcements, notifications and spam.
The solution would seem obvious - decide what you want, then hire the first applicant that qualifies.
Of course, the real issue is that a prospective employer doesn’t know what they want. Our “engineering” industry runs on vibes, heroic effort, fashion and hype-cycles. Someone very smart, enthusiastic, quick learning, flexible and affable is the only real job description.
Combine this with the “supply” side entirely overwhelming demand, having to compete with AI, and experience having no value, and for most software developers the future is bleak until a new more equitable equilibrium is found.
Nevertheless in the meantime, at least one can have solace in collecting the authors “failure stamps”.
My fear is that durable workflows are increasingly being seen as required for everything, because we need to solve the distributed transaction problem in a micro-services world.
It questions the initial wisdom of creating lots of little independent distributed apps, without regards to interaction between them. Let’s build ever more necessary plumbing and schemes just to enable their interaction.
I am arguing that durable workflows should be a last resort for boundaries you must cross, not a default pattern for every business process.
hn638 [at] aryeh [dot] sent [dot] com