[hhsectech]

There are two possible scenarios here. Firstly, they can't find the talent to support what you implemented...or more likely, your docs suck!

I've made a career out of inheriting other peoples whacky setups and supporting them (as well as fixing them) and almost always its documentation that has prevented the client getting anywhere.

I personally dont care if the docs are crap because usually the first thing I do is update / actually write the docs to make them usable.

For a lot of techs though crap documentation is a deal breaker.

Crap docs aren't always the fault of the guys implementing though, sometimes there are time constraints that prevent proper docs being written. Quite frequently though its outsourced development agencies that refuse to write it because its "out of scope" and a "billable extra". Which I think is an egregious stance...doxs Should be part and parcel of the project. Mandatory.

[smokel]

I agree that bad documentation is a serious problem in many cases. So much so that your suggestion to write the documentation after the fact can become quite impossible.

If there is only one thing that juniors should learn about writing documentation (be it comments or design documents), it is this: document why something is there. If resources are limited, you can safely skip comments that describe how something works, because that information is also available in code.

(It might help to describe what is available, especially if code is spread out over multiple repositories, libraries, teams, etc.)

(Also, I suppose the comment I'm responding to could've been slightly more forgiving to GP, but that's another story.)

[adrianmsmith]

> Quite frequently though its outsourced development agencies that refuse to write it

It's also completely against their interest to write docs as it makes their replacement easier.

That's why you need someone competent on the buying side to insist on the docs.

A lot of companies outsource because they don't have this competency themselves. So it's inevitable that this sort of thing happens and companies get locked in and can't replace their contractors, because they don't have any docs.

[lazyasciiart]

Unfortunately it’s also possible that e.g the company switched from share point to confluence and lost half the entire knowledge base because it wasn’t labeled the way they thought it was. Or that the docs were all purged because they were part of an abandoned project.

[thelastparadise]

> the first thing I do is update / actually write the docs to make them usable.

OK so the docs are in sync for a single point of time when you finish. Plus you get to have the context in your head (bus factor of 1, job security for you, bad for the org.)

How about if we just write clean infra configs/code, stick to well known systems like docker, ansible, k8s, etc.

Then we can make this infra code available to an on prem LLM and ask it questions as needed without it drifting out of sync overtime as your docs surely will.

Wrong documentation is worse than no documentation.

[jumploops]

Just to be clear, after I (and a few others left), they moved everything entirely to the cloud.

Even with documentation on the hybrid setup, they'd need to get a new on-prem environment up and running (find a colo, buy machines, set up the network, blah blah).

[ZoomerCretin]

Documentation? What for? It's self-documenting (to me, because I wrote it)!

[maxrecursion]

"Crap docs aren't always the fault of the guys implementing though, sometimes there are time constraints that prevent proper docs being written."

I can always guarantee a stream of consciousness one note that should have most of the important data, and a few docs about the most important parts. It's up to management if they want me to spend time turning that one note into actual robust documentation that is easily read.