161–170 of 291 posts
"Full stack" (except when referring to someone who can do everything from CPU design and assembly programming right up to UI work)
The impression I get from someone using this expression is that the speaker is oblivious to other kinds of software.
If this were a comment on HN, I would give it one of my rare downvotes. It's dismissive and negative without any compensating value or positivity. Maybe suggestions of terms to use?
I can dismiss something as shit without suggesting anything better. Sometimes things are just shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech debt is one of the few metaphors I love because it’s so accurate. What a lot of engineers struggle with is that manageable levels of debt is fine for a business and in fact superior to being cash constrained. Some forms of debt are a headache if the business goes south but tech debt can be ignored if the software project goes nowhere. So the “terms” are good. Rather than complaining about tech debt, one should c…
I agree, and I love the metaphor too, but you have to admit that something about the metaphor isn’t reaching peoples’ brains the way a good metaphor does. A good litmus test here is to ask someone, “what if I told you that technical debt was originally a good thing?”... Like “Yes! Let’s go and get some technical debt, it will be great!” And so, can you understand why it might have started out that way? People who rea…
In that case, it is a very apt metaphor because most people naturally see debt as a bad thing. But with some nuanced thinking and deeper investigation you recognise that it can be useful sometimes.
Sinister used to mean left handed. "A shambles" used to mean a slaughterhouse. Sanction used to mean allow, now it means not allow. It is fine for words to change meaning, even to their own opposite. Natural language has done that forever. Edit: you're all right, sanction has both meanings.
What’s your thoughts about the term “literally”? It’s one of my bugbears, because the term lost its meaning and I don’t know of any good replacement…
My Chambers dictionary suggests these alternatives: actually, really, absolutely.
It also says, "literally is in common use to intensify an idiom, and this is not incorrect".
My general rule is that usage defines meaning. If lots of people use literally as an idiom intensifier, then I'd be wrong to argue. However, my GCSE English teacher said that we need to consider the intended audience and form. Me saying, "They literally flew down the road" to my mates in the pub is fine. It is not fine in formal writing.
Object-Oriented Programming: "Luckily the industry doesn’t really use this term any more" Wait really? What world are they living in? Am I just out of touch or something?
OOP became a marketing term, but no longer sells designs, languages, etc. OOP alone used to be hot. Now it is either just assumed, or eschewed, or considered ambiguous. We’re getting there with FP, too. OOP…which kind? FP…which kind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I recently moved from software dev to devops and this sounds about right! I'm supposed to understand the product teams entire codebase, write the tooling, create/update terraform for the infra, implement CI/CD stuff plus act as some kind of IT guy with AWS access. Don't get me wrong, it makes a nice change from pure development, but it's clear that in most places, 'DevOps' is not so clearly defined.
I for one am rather fond of just calling it "one man IT department" or a "generalist" (for whatever reason it looks like this has become a dirty word lately)
I am curious about this statement: [OOP] might mean ... “modules, but using the word class” I would argue that "modules" is almost as useless of a term as "OOP". What does the author mean exactly?
Nothing of substance there, just unjustified and undifferentiated drivel about language and the (lack-of) meaning of words.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think you also missed the problem on this one. If you have "roles for operations" that doesn't involve development, it's not a devops role, it's just an operations role. Sure you can have devops in the mix, but someone doing operations exclusively isn't devops. It seems we both agree that having a DevOps engineer is not incompatible with DevOps?
We don't. "Operations" is not a synonym "DevOps". Devops does involve operations, but is not exclusively that. Having an Operations person work together with developers doesn't automatically make the Ops engineer into a DevOps engineer. Just as it wouldn't make the non-operations developers into DevOps engineers. Maybe the better term would be "Operations Engineer for multi-disciplinary Team". Not DevOps. EDIT: It wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't. "Operations" is not a synonym "DevOps". Devops does involve operations, but is not exclusively that. Having an Operations person work together with developers doesn't automatically make the Ops engineer into a DevOps engineer. Just as it wouldn't make the non-operations developers into DevOps engineers. Maybe the better term would be "Operations Engineer for multi-disciplinary Team". Not DevOps. EDIT: It wa…
I feel like you misunderstood me. I wasn't arguing about the definition of a "DevOps engineer". Since the author didn't give one, I went by the charity principle and used a definition that would make their argument stronger (a DevOps engineer that really is just an operations engineer). But even with that definition, having an operations engineer on a team does not preclude it from practicing DevOps and is arguably i…
Moreover, in a lot of places there are "DevOps" teams that consist only of Operations people, which is even worse. The usage of DevOps is to attract candidates, not to differentiate the skillset needed.
So, just because people misuse the term, we should find a different term --- to be misused again? Agile is what agile manifesto defines. What the author defines sounds more like Scrum. And we can call the corporate BS, Jira-based development. Technical debt also has a very specific meaning, nothing about hobbyist programming at all.