Stories with Tag experience

• You're not a senior engineer until you've worked on a legacy project

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-14 11:36:39

  Verbose tl;dr

  True seniority as a software engineer isn't just about technical prowess, but also navigating the complexities of existing systems. Working on a legacy project forces you to confront imperfect code, undocumented features, and the constraints of outdated technologies. This experience cultivates essential skills like debugging intricate problems, understanding system-wide implications of changes, making pragmatic decisions amidst technical debt, and collaborating with others who've inherited the system. These challenges, while frustrating, ultimately build a deeper understanding of software development's lifecycle and hone the judgment necessary for making informed, impactful contributions to any project, new or old. This experience is invaluable in shaping a well-rounded and truly senior engineer.

  The blog post "You're not a senior engineer until you've worked on a legacy project," published on Infobip's developer blog, posits that true senior-level engineering experience necessitates grappling with the intricacies and challenges inherent in legacy projects. The author contends that navigating the often-convoluted landscape of pre-existing codebases, especially those predating modern software engineering practices, offers a unique and invaluable form of professional development unavailable through greenfield projects.

  The post elaborates on several key arguments supporting this thesis. It highlights the importance of understanding code written by others, often without comprehensive documentation or adherence to contemporary best practices. This requires deciphering potentially obscure logic, untangling dependencies, and appreciating the historical context of design choices. Furthermore, the author emphasizes the significance of making changes within a legacy system without introducing regressions. This necessitates meticulous testing, a cautious approach to refactoring, and a deep appreciation for the potential ripple effects of even seemingly minor alterations.

  The article underscores the value of learning to balance the need for improvement with the constraints of a legacy system. Idealistic solutions may be impractical due to time, budget, or technical limitations. A senior engineer, therefore, must develop the pragmatism to choose the most effective solution within these constraints, often opting for incremental improvements over wholesale rewrites. This involves making informed trade-offs, prioritizing stability and maintainability, and recognizing the potential cost of technical debt.

  Furthermore, the post suggests that working with legacy projects cultivates a heightened sense of responsibility. Changes to established systems directly impact users and business operations, making careful consideration and thorough testing paramount. This experience fosters an understanding of the real-world consequences of engineering decisions and cultivates a sense of ownership over the codebase.

  In conclusion, the blog post argues that the crucible of legacy projects forges the essential skills and mindset of a truly senior engineer. The challenges presented by these projects, from deciphering cryptic code to making impactful changes within constraints, provide invaluable experience in problem-solving, pragmatism, and responsibility that transcends the more straightforward nature of greenfield development. This experience ultimately contributes to a more well-rounded and seasoned software engineer capable of tackling the complexities of real-world software systems.

  • software engineering
  • Senior Engineers
  • legacy code
  • Legacy Projects
  • career development
  • software maintenance
  • Technical Debt
  • professional development
  • Engineering Skills
  • experience

  Summary of Comments ( 209 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43047341

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users largely disagreed with the premise of the linked article. Several commenters argued that working on legacy code doesn't inherently make someone a senior engineer, pointing out that many junior developers are often assigned to maintain older projects. Instead, they suggested that seniority comes from a broader range of experience, including designing and building new systems, mentoring junior developers, and understanding the business context of their work. Some argued that the article conflated "seniority" with "experience" or "tenure." A few commenters did agree that legacy code experience is valuable, but emphasized it as just one aspect of becoming a senior engineer, not the defining factor. Several highlighted the important skills gained from grappling with legacy systems, such as debugging, refactoring, and understanding complex codebases.

  The Hacker News post "You're not a senior engineer until you've worked on a legacy project" generated a fair amount of discussion, with many commenters sharing their perspectives on the value of legacy project experience for senior engineers.

  Several commenters agreed with the premise, arguing that grappling with legacy codebases forces engineers to develop crucial skills like debugging, understanding complex systems, and making careful, incremental changes. One commenter highlighted the importance of learning to work within constraints and understanding the trade-offs made in the original design. Another pointed out the value of legacy projects in teaching patience and the importance of documentation. Someone else emphasized the realization that perfect code doesn't exist and the need to appreciate the effort of previous developers. The experience of working on a legacy system, they argued, instills a greater sense of responsibility and helps engineers avoid repeating past mistakes.

  However, some commenters disagreed with the article's strong assertion. They argued that while maintaining legacy code is a valuable skill, it shouldn't be a requirement for senior engineer status. One commenter suggested that greenfield projects can be just as challenging and require a different set of skills, like architectural design and foresight. Another commenter pointed out that some senior engineers specialize in specific areas that might not involve interacting with legacy code. They argued that equating seniority with legacy experience is an oversimplification.

  A few commenters took a middle ground, acknowledging the benefits of legacy project experience while cautioning against overexposure. One argued that too much time spent on legacy systems can hinder professional growth and prevent engineers from learning newer technologies. Another commenter emphasized the importance of finding a balance between maintaining existing systems and contributing to new projects. They suggested that rotating engineers between legacy and greenfield projects can provide a well-rounded experience.

  Beyond the central debate, some commenters shared anecdotes about their own experiences with legacy code, highlighting both the frustrations and the learning opportunities. One commenter shared a story about inheriting a complex system with no documentation, while another talked about the satisfaction of successfully modernizing a legacy application. These anecdotes added a personal touch to the discussion and illustrated the diverse challenges and rewards of working with legacy projects.

  Finally, there was some discussion about the definition of "legacy code." Some commenters defined it simply as "old code," while others emphasized the lack of tests, documentation, or original developers as key characteristics. This nuance highlighted the complexity of the topic and the varying perspectives on what constitutes a legacy system.

• Software development topics I've changed my mind on

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-05 09:50:30

  Verbose tl;dr

  After a decade in software development, the author reflects on evolving perspectives. Initially valuing DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principles above all, they now prioritize readability and understand that some duplication is acceptable. Early career enthusiasm for TDD (Test-Driven Development) has mellowed into a more pragmatic approach, recognizing its value but not treating it as dogma. Similarly, the author's strict adherence to OOP (Object-Oriented Programming) has given way to a more flexible style, embracing functional programming concepts when appropriate. Overall, the author advocates for a balanced, context-driven approach to software development, prioritizing practical solutions over rigid adherence to any single paradigm.

  Chris Kiehl, reflecting on a decade of experience in software development, articulates a nuanced evolution in his perspective on several key tenets of the profession. He meticulously dissects his previous beliefs and explains how practical experience has reshaped his understanding, offering valuable insights into the dynamic nature of the field.

  One significant shift involves his view on testing. Initially a staunch advocate for extensive, comprehensive testing, including Test-Driven Development (TDD), Kiehl now espouses a more pragmatic approach. He elaborates that while testing remains crucial, the pursuit of 100% test coverage can be counterproductive, leading to diminishing returns and potentially hindering rapid iteration and development velocity. Instead, he champions a strategy of focusing testing efforts on critical areas of the codebase, prioritizing high-risk components and user-facing functionalities, thus optimizing the allocation of testing resources.

  Similarly, his perspective on static typing has undergone a transformation. While once a proponent of dynamically typed languages, attracted by their inherent flexibility and perceived speed of development, Kiehl now acknowledges the long-term benefits of static typing, particularly in larger projects and within collaborative environments. He details how static typing, despite its initial perceived overhead, can significantly enhance code maintainability, reduce debugging time, and improve overall code quality by catching potential errors early in the development cycle. This, he argues, ultimately contributes to greater efficiency and robustness in the long run.

  Furthermore, Kiehl's stance on rewriting code has also evolved. He candidly admits to previously harboring a desire to rewrite existing codebases, often driven by the perceived elegance and efficiency of a fresh start. However, he now recognizes the inherent complexities and risks associated with large-scale rewrites, emphasizing the potential for unforeseen issues and the significant investment of time and resources required. He now advocates for a more incremental approach to code improvement, focusing on refactoring specific areas of the codebase as needed, rather than undertaking complete overhauls.

  Finally, Kiehl addresses the topic of "best practices." He explains that while established best practices can serve as valuable guidelines, they should not be followed blindly or dogmatically. He highlights the importance of context and emphasizes that the optimal approach often depends on the specific circumstances of the project, the team's expertise, and the overall project goals. He encourages a critical evaluation of best practices and advocates for adapting them to suit the unique needs of each individual project, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all mentality.

  • Software Development
  • programming
  • career
  • experience
  • reflection
  • learning
  • best practices
  • opinions
  • paradigm shifts
  • software engineering
  • coding
  • development process
  • lessons learned
  • personal growth
  • retrospective

  Summary of Comments ( 726 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42946281

  Verbose tl;dr

  Commenters on Hacker News largely agreed with the author's points about the importance of shipping software frequently, embracing simplicity, and focusing on the user experience. Several highlighted the shift away from premature optimization and the growing appreciation for "boring" technologies that prioritize stability and maintainability. Some discussed the author's view on testing, with some suggesting that the appropriate level of testing depends on the specific project and context. Others shared their own experiences and evolving perspectives on similar topics, echoing the author's sentiment about the continuous learning process in software development. A few commenters pointed out the timeless nature of some of the author's original beliefs, like the value of automated testing and continuous integration, suggesting that these practices remain relevant and beneficial even a decade later.

  The Hacker News post "Software development topics I've changed my mind on" (linking to an article by Chris Kiehl) generated a moderate amount of discussion, with a number of commenters sharing their own evolving perspectives on software development practices.

  Several commenters echoed the author's sentiment about the importance of shipping code frequently and iterating based on feedback. One commenter highlighted the value of "getting something – anything – in front of users" as early as possible to validate assumptions and gather real-world insights. This resonated with another commenter who emphasized the learning process that unfolds when software meets actual users, noting that this real-world feedback loop is essential for refining and improving the product.

  The discussion also touched on the balance between perfectionism and pragmatism. One commenter cautioned against striving for an elusive "perfect" architecture, arguing that focusing on immediate needs and iteratively improving the design is a more effective approach. Another commenter acknowledged the allure of "greenfield" projects but emphasized the value of working with existing codebases, describing it as a crucial skill for any developer. They further suggested that inheriting and evolving existing systems offers valuable lessons in practical software development that greenfield projects often lack.

  The topic of premature optimization also emerged, with one commenter mentioning their shift away from over-engineering and towards simpler, more straightforward solutions. They suggested that complexity should be introduced only when necessary, guided by profiling and actual performance bottlenecks rather than preemptive assumptions.

  Another commenter offered a slightly different perspective on testing, acknowledging its importance but cautioning against excessive reliance on automated tests. They argued that some forms of testing can become burdensome and time-consuming, ultimately slowing down the development process. This individual advocated for a more pragmatic approach to testing, prioritizing tests that deliver the greatest value.

  Finally, a recurring theme throughout the comments was the continuous evolution of best practices in software development. Several commenters emphasized the importance of staying open-minded and adaptable, recognizing that what works in one context may not be appropriate in another. This sentiment reinforces the idea that software development is a dynamic field where continuous learning and reevaluation are essential.

• I am (not) a failure: Lessons learned from six failed startup attempts

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-20 18:40:45

  Verbose tl;dr

  Ron Garrett reflects on six failed startup attempts, rejecting the label of "failure" and instead focusing on the valuable lessons learned. He emphasizes the importance of choosing the right co-founder, validating ideas early and often, building a minimum viable product (MVP) quickly, and iterating based on user feedback. Marketing and distribution proved crucial, and while passion is essential, it must be coupled with a realistic market and sustainable business model. Ultimately, he learned that "failing fast" and adapting are key to entrepreneurial growth, viewing each setback as a stepping stone toward future success.

  Ron Garrett, in a reflective and deeply personal blog post titled "I am (not) a failure: Lessons learned from six failed startup attempts," chronicles his entrepreneurial journey, marked by not one, not two, but six unsuccessful startup ventures. He meticulously dissects each experience, not to dwell on the sting of failure, but rather to extract valuable insights and wisdom gained through the crucible of repeated entrepreneurial endeavors.

  Garrett commences his narrative by establishing a crucial distinction: the separation of the individual from the outcome of their ventures. He argues vehemently against conflating the failure of a business with the failure of the entrepreneur behind it. This crucial separation forms the philosophical bedrock of his post, allowing him to objectively analyze his experiences without succumbing to self-defeating negativity.

  He then proceeds to systematically examine each of his six failed startups, providing a concise yet detailed overview of each venture’s unique circumstances. This includes the nature of the business, the problems it aimed to solve, the strategies employed, and ultimately, the contributing factors leading to its demise. From a venture involving a SaaS product for managing construction projects, to a platform connecting local businesses with consumers, the diversity of his attempts underscores a persistent drive to innovate and create.

  Throughout this examination, recurring themes emerge. Garrett identifies critical lessons learned across these varied experiences, highlighting crucial aspects of startup success, such as the paramount importance of validating ideas rigorously before substantial investment, the necessity of assembling a highly competent and dedicated team, and the often-underestimated power of effective marketing and sales strategies. He specifically emphasizes the need for a "product-market fit," arguing that a brilliant idea without a receptive market is destined for failure. Furthermore, he reflects on the significant impact of external factors, such as market timing and competition, demonstrating an understanding of the complex interplay of forces that influence a startup’s trajectory.

  Beyond these practical business lessons, Garrett also delves into the emotional and psychological toll of repeated setbacks. He candidly discusses the feelings of disappointment, self-doubt, and the temptation to give up that inevitably accompany entrepreneurial failure. However, he emphasizes the importance of resilience, perseverance, and the ability to learn from mistakes. This emphasis on the growth mindset, on viewing failures as learning opportunities rather than definitive pronouncements of one’s abilities, is central to his narrative.

  Ultimately, Garrett concludes his post not with a tale of defeat, but with a message of hope and renewed determination. He frames his experiences not as failures, but as valuable learning experiences that have shaped him into a more seasoned and resilient entrepreneur. He emphasizes the ongoing nature of his entrepreneurial journey, suggesting that these six ventures, while unsuccessful individually, have collectively contributed to a richer understanding of the startup landscape, ultimately preparing him for future endeavors. He conveys a sense of optimism, looking forward to applying the accumulated wisdom gleaned from his past experiences to achieve future success.

  • startups
  • failure
  • lessons learned
  • entrepreneurship
  • Business
  • persistence
  • grit
  • motivation
  • Resilience
  • self-improvement
  • personal growth
  • reflection
  • experience

  Summary of Comments ( 210 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42771676

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely praised the author's vulnerability and honesty in sharing their startup failures. Several highlighted the importance of recognizing sunk cost fallacy and knowing when to pivot or quit. Some questioned the framing of the experiences as "failures," arguing that valuable lessons and growth emerged from them. A few commenters shared their own similar experiences, emphasizing the emotional toll of startup struggles. Others offered practical advice, such as validating ideas early and prioritizing distribution. The prevailing sentiment was one of empathy and encouragement, acknowledging the difficulty of entrepreneurship and the courage it takes to try repeatedly.

  The Hacker News post titled "I am (not) a failure: Lessons learned from six failed startup attempts" generated a fair amount of discussion, with several commenters sharing their own experiences and perspectives on startup failure.

  A compelling thread emerged around the definition of "failure." Several commenters challenged the author's framing of his experiences as "failures," arguing that valuable learning and growth came from each attempt. One commenter pointed out that the author gained significant experience, including learning to code, building and launching products, and navigating the complexities of running a business. These were framed not as evidence of failure, but as significant accomplishments that contribute to future success. This sparked further discussion on the importance of reframing "failure" as "learning" and focusing on the iterative nature of entrepreneurship. Another commenter echoed this sentiment, highlighting the value of the journey itself, regardless of the outcome. They emphasized that the skills and knowledge acquired through these experiences are assets, not liabilities.

  Another recurring theme in the comments was the importance of validating ideas early and often. Commenters discussed the tendency of founders to become emotionally attached to their ideas, which can make it difficult to objectively assess their viability. One commenter shared a personal anecdote about clinging to a failing project for too long, emphasizing the need to be willing to pivot or abandon an idea when the data suggests it's not working. Others suggested strategies for early validation, such as conducting thorough market research and seeking feedback from potential customers.

  Several commenters also offered practical advice for aspiring entrepreneurs. One emphasized the importance of building a strong network of mentors and advisors who can provide guidance and support. Another suggested focusing on solving a real problem for a specific target audience, rather than getting caught up in the hype of a particular technology or trend.

  While some commenters praised the author's vulnerability and honesty in sharing his experiences, others expressed skepticism about the value of learning from repeated failures. One commenter argued that while some lessons can be learned from failure, consistently failing to launch a successful startup might indicate a deeper issue with the founder's approach or decision-making process. This prompted a counter-argument that the number of attempts is less important than the quality of the learning and the founder's ability to adapt and improve with each iteration.

  Finally, there was some discussion about the role of luck and timing in startup success. One commenter acknowledged the hard work and dedication involved in building a startup, but also pointed out that external factors, such as market conditions and competitor activity, can significantly impact the outcome. They suggested that entrepreneurs should be prepared for the unpredictable nature of the startup journey and focus on controlling what they can, while adapting to the inevitable challenges and uncertainties.