[ravenstine]

What really undermines that necessity is this whole thing of having new developers "hit the ground running", meaning they're not just given light tasks for the first few months to help them understand the codebase and philosophy, but full blown important tasks with deadlines. I've had this happen to me more than once and I think it kind of acts to gaslight the new developer into initially thinking that the problem is them and not the codebase. Although I made it through building out a context menu UI from scratch as a first task on a previous project I was hired on to, that probably wasn't the best thing for that reason.

I get that new devs need a mindset to understand the existing approaches, but tossing them right into the middle of the foray actually makes things worse.

And yeah, teams need to be able to respect and respond to the frustrations of new developers. If a new developer, especially a senior developer, needs hours or days and multiple approvals to do something as simple as change a string, for instance, something is seriously wrong and you need to actually re-evaluate what everyone is doing.

Yes, I've experienced that exact phenomenon, and it's amazing how little people are concerned by that kind of thing. I'm not the greatest programmer in the world by any means, but I know how to change a string and when a design is ridiculously inefficient. Yes, there was a project I was on-boarded to where one of the tasks was changing how a string appeared in the UI; it turned out there was a shared library carrying the target string, but it wasn't exactly obvious that was where the string was coming from, and multiple other projects were using that library and so the review process needed to apply to all projects involved. For some reason, although a role was delegated to deploying the app itself, it's up to individual devs to build the library and register it as an NPM package, and there was a tight protocol around. Because of the toolchain, the library was not easy to test with an app locally. So it ended up that changing a string could take several hours or even days, especially if someone wanted to squeeze in another string change into that same task.

As a developer who just joined a team, what are you really supposed to do? Just plow through believing that there's a good reason for the madness?

Maybe the existing approach is actually bad.

[ericsilly]

Agreed on the hit-the-ground-running problem. Related to your final point, assuming that you're not coming into a situation well-known by all parties to be a shit show, I think there needs to be a Minimum Patience Period (probably relative to the size/complexity of the project, window given to get up to speed, etc). For example, if the product is working well, the release cadence is acceptable, the defect rate is low, etc, I think the prior devs have earned a reasonable benefit-of-the-doubt MPP that a new dev should accommodate for learning the existing approach and rationales. I've seen a senior dev completely change tooling and build process for a "fine" app at the end of their second week. All good ideas in the right time, but...

[ravenstine]

> I think there needs to be a Minimum Patience Period

100%. That can be very, very hard, but yes. It's also got to go both ways. New devs need an MPP for the project, and the rest of the team and management needs an MPP in relation to the new dev.

> if the product is working well, the release cadence is acceptable, the defect rate is low, etc, I think the prior devs have earned a reasonable benefit-of-the-doubt MPP that a new dev should accommodate for learning the existing approach and rationales.

That's often true, though release cadence and defects in production can also be low if you hire a crapton of devs to work on the same project despite any present dysfunction. So that may be something to keep in mind, too. And maybe that means the new dev realizes that they need to change their expectations such that the underpinnings of a project are conceptually flawed and that it's really their job to deal with that given that the company has plenty of revenue that they can just hire however many devs it takes to keep things running.

> I've seen a senior dev completely change tooling and build process for a "fine" app at the end of their second week. All good ideas in the right time, but...

Haha, ohhh yes, I've been on both sides of that coin. This problem really highlights how the difficult part of coding isn't so much the code but the people (and in a good way!). I've made that mistake of coming in and fiddling with, kind of wrecking, the existing process. Some of that is overambition, some of it is the lack of formal training in our field, and some of it is the ambiguity of roles that is quite common. The word "senior" can illicit this self image that you can and should make sweeping decisions. I've appreciated it when teams have been able to communicate expectations upon joining rather than just saying "it's up to you" for everything; that is until you actually do change something like a part of the toolchain, resulting in technical and interpersonal issues.

In my next role as a senior, I plan on going in with the mindset of not changing the foundation of a project except requesting removing the spandrels and canards that no longer serve a purpose.