|
Shrimpy posted:Maybe I'm missing something, but I've always been under the impression that the "Dev" portion of "DevOps" was developing the automation? It's 'ops' for development, that is, processes and infrastructure meant to support software development.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
I've always assumed it means one of two things: - We'll make our devs do all the infrastructure and operations tasks as well. 2 jobs for the price of 1! - A cool title we gave to the sad sack who is stuck writing custom Jenkins and JIRA plugins for our shittactular code base and legacy architecture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:- We'll make our devs do all the infrastructure and operations tasks as well. 2 jobs for the price of 1! Wow no. It's a culture that fosters communication between dev team and the ops team. It's not about shifting work from one to the other, it's about clear communication and better understanding of the big picture. I've worked in places where software was developed in a bubble, and then installed/run on QA/staging/prod servers in a bubble. Things went horribly wrong all the time and took ages to fix because no one was communicating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Ithaqua posted:Wow no. It's a culture that fosters communication between dev team and the ops team. It's not about shifting work from one to the other, it's about clear communication and better understanding of the big picture. I've worked in places where software was developed in a bubble, and then installed/run on QA/staging/prod servers in a bubble. Things went horribly wrong all the time and took ages to fix because no one was communicating. Yep! We have a four person DevOps team and they sit right among the server and infrastructure engineers. (And we're hiring if you want to work in Seattle PM me)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:Yep! We have a four person DevOps team and they sit right among the server and infrastructure engineers. (And we're hiring if you want to work in Seattle PM me) The place I'm starting at in 2 weeks is set up in the same way. It's all about shared responsibility for getting code into production in a way that's consistent, repeatable, and stable. Also we're hiring for another member of the team in Cambridge, MA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
I'm 30+ and still developing enterprise .NET apps, I've used "ancient" things like MVVM with WPF (no silverlight), ASP.NET AJAX, WCF and all the related .NET things one has to do to be an enterprise .NET developer. Should I actually be learning MongoDB and Angular and all the *.js libraries to make sure I can actually find a job? I sure as heck know almost everyone wants a mobile developer and I have no experience in that except a small MVC app that was designed for mobile. Should I just stick with .NET route because I'm not even sure anyone would hire me as a mobile or *.js developer. PS. I don't work anywhere near Silicon Valley I am in a low cost of living area. I kind of feel I would spout all the old Microsoft patterns I learned like MVP/MVVM Entity Framework Repository pattern and the interviewer would just go "huh" Melted_Igloo fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Oct 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Urit posted:That's why I'm trying to figure out how to transition more to an official software development type role, because I love the part where I'm solving the problems, but I hate the part where the problem is just "how do I get some lovely code to behave just long enough to work" with no way to fix it. I have some bad news for you about software development
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Shrimpy posted:Maybe I'm missing something, but I've always been under the impression that the "Dev" portion of "DevOps" was developing the automation? Ithaqua's post has it right. It has nothing to do with who develops what - it's very much more a culture thing. Ithaqua posted:Wow no. It's a culture that fosters communication between dev team and the ops team. It's not about shifting work from one to the other, it's about clear communication and better understanding of the big picture. I've worked in places where software was developed in a bubble, and then installed/run on QA/staging/prod servers in a bubble. Things went horribly wrong all the time and took ages to fix because no one was communicating. The places I've worked at and have interviewed at all have viewed DevOps as a fancier version of the traditional Ops - developers still threw everything over the wall to Ops, Ops didn't get a say in how anything was built/set up for deployment, Dev never asked if Ops could actually do a thing or knew an alternate way to go about something (e.g. one place I was at built this huuuuuuuuuge complicated event processing and parsing framework that stored logs in SQL when what they really wanted was Elasticsearch and Logstash and Kibana - and when showed that, they agreed that it was much more what they wanted but the cost was sunk already so it wouldn't be deployed). The platonic ideal of DevOps is very nice and I'd probably enjoy working at a place where that was practiced. However, I'm taking 6mo off and moving out of Seattle for now - I want some time off and tech salaries as a single person leave plenty of cash in the bank.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Melted_Igloo posted:I'm 30+ and still developing enterprise .NET apps, I've used "ancient" things like MVVM with WPF (no silverlight), ASP.NET AJAX, WCF and all the related .NET things one has to do to be an enterprise .NET developer. I'd consider doing WebAPI and Angular apps I guess. WebAPI is straightforward, especially if you've used MVC, and Angular uses a structure that I think is pretty familiar for C# guys. I don't see a lot of .NET shops using MongoDB but I think SPAs are kind of what everyone is excited about right now and AFAIK Angular is still the most popular. N.B.: I have only done software development for like two years so this answer could be totally off-base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
If you want to go the route of doing Angular, look into TypeScript as well. It will feel even more like C# and it gives you a semblance of type safety in JavaScript. Use VSCode for your editor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:If you want to go the route of doing Angular, look into TypeScript as well. It will feel even more like C# and it gives you a semblance of type safety in JavaScript. Use VSCode for your editor. And use Angular 2. Angular 2 was written in TypeScript so it's very TypeScript-friendly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
Ithaqua posted:And use Angular 2. Angular 2 was written in TypeScript so it's very TypeScript-friendly. Well if the idea is to be marketable I'm not sure. Angular 2 is not fully baked yet and it's not totally guaranteed it'll take off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS posted:Well if the idea is to be marketable I'm not sure. Angular 2 is not fully baked yet and it's not totally guaranteed it'll take off. It will most certainly take off, it's better in almost every way than Angular 1. It's just not done yet, but most places that are using Angular 1.x right now (and don't hate themselves for it) are very interested in Angular 2.0.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:It will most certainly take off, it's better in almost every way than Angular 1. It's just not done yet, but most places that are using Angular 1.x right now (and don't hate themselves for it) are very interested in Angular 2.0. At the risk of totally derailing this thread, I have a couple issues with it:
FWIW I attended an Angular Summit recently (which was really misleadingly named because most of the stuff had nothing to do with Angular but whatever) and I talked to a lot of people who seemed skeptical. Not exactly a rigorous way to measure but that's what I've got.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:- We'll make our devs do all the infrastructure and operations tasks as well. 2 jobs for the price of 1! that's what I get to do  it's not like you'd find a lot of ops teams who love the idea of operating Erlang stacks on your behalf anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Dear Oldies: I have been taking interviews to attempt to push myself back up to a market salary. I am finding that it is really tough to get interested to work/apply at a company that is outwardly "non-exciting" for lack of a better word. How do you evaluate and get interested in companies who maybe outwardly aren't doing interesting things, but inwardly might have good financials a solid process and a good work environment? I think I would definitely prefer a good "job" over an interesting "project" and I have maybe exhausted the local market of name brand companies that have reputations for interesting "projects". Maybe I am pickier than my interviewing skills can support or maybe I should branch out of single platform mobile dev. Just having an acceptable release process eliminates a lot of positions. Other than the lower pay my current gig is actually really nice which also doesn't help things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Cross-posting this from the newbie thread since it's probably more applicable to this thread:quote:Is it possible to stick with being a developer, or at least to stick with positions revolving around development - lead developer, etc. - your whole career? Or is that frowned upon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Kallikrates posted:Dear Oldies: You'll find that "Fun" and "Interesting" and "Meaningful" are most often traded in for "Higher Pay" and "Better Benefits" and hopefully "Work Life Balance." Fun, interesting, and/or meaningful jobs don't have to pay as well and you don't care about work life balance as much because, hey, your job is fun, interesting, and/or meaningful. If you get super lucky you can have it all but that's unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Cross-posting this from the newbie thread since it's probably more applicable to this thread: You already got accurate answers in the other thread. Yes, it's increasingly common for there to be parallel career tracks for technically-minded people that don't want to move into management.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Ithaqua posted:You already got accurate answers in the other thread. Yes, it's increasingly common for there to be parallel career tracks for technically-minded people that don't want to move into management. I did, but I thought I might get more information in the oldie thread. More information is always good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Cross-posting this from the newbie thread since it's probably more applicable to this thread: Our newest senior developer has been a senior engineering director for some very major companies. She just got tired of all the bullshit and wanted to write code again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
I'm always a bit weary of those dual-track ladders. They may seem equivalent on paper, but if you consider a front-line manager to be at the same level / salary grade as a senior engineer, most companies have an order of magnitude more senior managers, directors, and VPs than they have staff and senior staff engineers. The tracks may look the same, but one is clearly easier to climb than the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
in_cahoots posted:I'm always a bit weary of those dual-track ladders. They may seem equivalent on paper, but if you consider a front-line manager to be at the same level / salary grade as a senior engineer, most companies have an order of magnitude more senior managers, directors, and VPs than they have staff and senior staff engineers. The tracks may look the same, but one is clearly easier to climb than the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
Vulture Culture posted:Companies that are R&D-focused, like IBM or Cisco, often have titles like "Distinguished Engineer" that carry every bit as much prestige and compensation as their management counterparts. You're right that these positions don't exist in most organizations. They exist, I just don't see many people in those roles. On the management side, you can pretty much infer your title by counting how many layers of management are below you. Companies don't really have an incentive to promote anyone beyond Senior Engineer, so generally the only people I've seen with higher titles are the ones who've threatened to quit and got a promotion to retain them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Another question: How much do advanced degrees - let's say a Masters in CS - matter in the non-academic job market? Georgia Tech is offering an online masters and I was thinking about going for it at some point, but I don't know if it's worth it beyond personal gratification.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Another question: Career ambition shouldn't be the reason you pursue an advanced degree. Even an undergraduate degree doesn't matter that much as your career progresses, let alone a masters. If you wanted to do Ph.D studies in something marketable (machine learning) that could lead to really cool jobs down the line, but that's also less likely to pan out because it's a niche market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Ithaqua posted:Career ambition shouldn't be the reason you pursue an advanced degree. It wouldn't be the main reason but I am curious to know if it has any utility in the job market, especially if you're in software but your undergrad isn't in anything tech related.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Another question: It seems like certain government / government contractor type places, like big defense firms, for instance, put more stock in more advanced degrees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
Basically anywhere where your name goes on a proposal will probably assign a bit more value to an advanced degree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Based entirely on my experience as an undergrad and also interviewing fresh masters grads, masters degrees in something like CS are basically cash cows for universities without much actual economic value. If you want to get a research or academic job then a PhD is the way to go. A masters might get you a bump of $20k or so at the start of a career but if your good and have a few years experience there's not going to be any difference in pay. When I was in undergrad the masters students basically took the same classes we did, so it was more or less 3-4 extra semesters of senior level coursework with maybe an independent project as well. Also a HUGE number of masters students in most CS programs these days are basically foreign students with an undergrad degree from China or India, looking to get an American degree as a foot in the door for the immigration process (student visa --> company sponsorship --> green card). Universities, meanwhile, are all too happy to take their money and then farm them out with ungrad coursework and lab slaves to PhD candidates for a few years. Anyway, that's just what I've seen happening at my alma mater. There are a few careers where specific degree credentials unlock particular jobs and salary tiers but for the most part software engineering isn't one of them. Don't get a masters for money, get more experience and skills working and get paid to learn instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Doghouse posted:It seems like certain government / government contractor type places, like big defense firms, for instance, put more stock in more advanced degrees. For those kind of jobs your best bet if you want to maximize earnings is find a company that will sponsor TS clearance. Once you have that you can basically just hang a sign on your bank account that reads "put all money here".
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Cross-posting this from the newbie thread since it's probably more applicable to this thread: The company I work at has this dual track structure, but it doesn't really work. From low to high Software Engineer 1-3 Senior Software Engineer Lead Software Engineer Principal Software Engineer 1-3(3 exists only in theory nobody has it) Principal Architect 1-5 And managers are Development Manger(to differentiate from Project/Product managers) Senior Development Manager Director Development Senior Director Development VP whatever SVP whatever The Lead Software Engineer title is half senior dev half development manager. You can go from Senior Software Engineer to Lead or Principal or Development manager. It's clearly not matching levels on both sides. But the main issue with it that I see is that they never say oh poo poo this team needs a Principal whatever, but they do get things like this team is too big the manager gets a bump up to senior manager and they make some new managers below them. Most of the Principal Architects were outside hires at that level and are all in one group, where they think thoughts and produce proof of concepts for what the new direction would be every 6-9 months. Their backgrounds all seem to have been director/VP level people where they came from, not directly from the engineering ranks. The Principal Engineers all seem to be over the hill and not up on anything new. They were the engineers who built the pile of crap we have today and are proud of it, despite its significant problems. On the totally separate topic of Masters degrees, from the people I know doing government contracting it seems to be worth a 10-20k bump, but outside the DC area that's probably not applicable to most people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
in_cahoots posted:They exist, I just don't see many people in those roles. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
It's not like I'm old as dirt, but at a certain point software development as an individual contributor gets less interesting, even as languages and technologies evolve. The more time you spend in your career, the more you will want to tackle larger and more complex projects. You will want to spend less time writing code or booting up servers because firstly -- you've done it a million times before and it gets boring, but more importantly, you will be occupied thinking about a bigger picture and you will need to delegate. There's only so much one engineer can do by themselves. Besides, companies don't want to hand out high salaries to people who spend their careers only working on small parts, unless it's highly specialized and highly critical. You will need to think about how your grand vision can be split up into parts, how it will fit together, what will happen to the whole project timeline when something is not built correctly or lagging behind schedule. Delegating is itself work, it's management. You can buffer yourself from a lot of management with a project manager and scrum master and engineering manager, but you will still need to work with them. You will need to work with the sysops or cloudops guys, the security team if compliance is at stake, product people and possibly sit in on business development meetings. You might retain your technical soul and focus throughout this and always be the principal engineer for the project, but you will need to learn how to manage. You can remain an individual contributor for life, and be extremely skilled and rewarded, but you will eventually reach a peak in your value to the company. You are limited in your capacity to build as an individual. There are lots of kids out there who write good enough code and who are willing to sacrifice more of their free time and eat more stimulants than you. There are fewer people who have good systems development and project management experience. Besides, code is fun for a while. But big systems are funner. sink fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:You'll find that "Fun" and "Interesting" and "Meaningful" are most often traded in for "Higher Pay" and "Better Benefits" and hopefully "Work Life Balance." Fun, interesting, and/or meaningful jobs don't have to pay as well and you don't care about work life balance as much because, hey, your job is fun, interesting, and/or meaningful. If you get super lucky you can have it all but that's unlikely. Yeah I realize that, I guess I've just been lucky once or twice. Looks like I have to mentally accept that I might have to trade some fun-ness for some $$. Lucky in that the work was fun paid well and had a reasonable work environment. Had to ruin that by moving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
You're making this blanket statement and applying it to all developers and it's simply not true for all of us. I am working with people right now for whom it's not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Che Delilas posted:You're making this blanket statement and applying it to all developers and it's simply not true for all of us. I am working with people right now for whom it's not. I made a lot of statements while hand waving wildly. Which one are you speaking to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
sink posted:I made a lot of statements while hand waving wildly. Which one are you speaking to? Every subjective one, the ones that start with, "you will..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Principal engineers aren't management and aren't individual contributors. Your whole post is hyper-focused on the label "individual contributor" and ignores the gap between that and management that parallel technical growth tracks generally focus on. You're unable to formulate a definition of "leadership" that is distinct from management.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:14 |
|
|
JawnV6 posted:Principal engineers aren't management and aren't individual contributors. Your whole post is hyper-focused on the label "individual contributor" and ignores the gap between that and management that parallel technical growth tracks generally focus on. You're unable to formulate a definition of "leadership" that is distinct from management. That's totally valid. Yeah, I was speaking to ICs in particular but only. There is a lot of leadership space between management and technical IC, but I think a lot of (medium sized) organizations have a tough time defining or making practical use of that leadership role. I'd like to see more of it! And a lot of what I am describing isn't necessary people management. As a principal or fellow or whatever, you just plain need to know how projects work, so your high level contributions can be materialized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 23:41
|
|