Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by johnvanommen 923 days ago
> I've worked in places that refused to allow us (IT) to write programs to automate processes that would have saved enough money yearly to buy a house. They were "severely concerned" because "if you leave or get hit by a bus, who will maintain it?"

I mean... they kinda have a point don't they?

I was the sole maintainer on an app used by a Fortune 500 company, and if I were to get hit by a bus, it would've been very difficult (possibly impossible) to support it.

There was very little documentation, because nobody but me was maintaining it.

2 comments

But you wrote the docs and documented it’s place in the enterprise knowledge graph, because you’re a professional, right?

As an eng manager at an enterprise (not SV style tech) I differentiate between coders and developers.

Developers help our business by actively taking part in shaping software, automated workflows and integrations that makes us improve as a whole.

At lot of time is spent documenting and figuring out how that piece of software someone wrote 7 years ago, before us, works and what integrates.

This is why I firmly believe you need to tie documentation to running code in some way - at the very least a basic service graph that contains all services, dependencies and some metadata.

Tie this database to automatic firewall and proxy configuration and you’re on a good track.

We’ve on the other hand taken the strategic decision that tech and IT will help us win (is it the 90’s all over again?!) and we staff as such. A team is at least two, and no individual can own a service.

> it would've been very difficult (possibly impossible) to support it.

People are reverse engineering binary blobs, I’d say your software can be deciphered. It would be an hassle, but doable.