• fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Honestly probably got the project to more maintainable state. Probably didn’t need the rewrite to do it in a new lang to do it (the real killer hear it sounds like).

    Those monoliths suck on the operations side, and even worse when it’s a corpse holding up the foundation to other projects that actually need it to change. Need to scale? good luck that decades old pizza box we call a server isn’t supported anymore. Oh of course we can spend millions virtualizing dead hardware to keep it running the same.

  • somegeek@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I say this is only ok because he did that in amazon. Fuck amazon

    If ge did that in a medium-or-less sized company that would be a really shitty move.

    • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      58 minutes ago

      In a small company noone would try to label you “l5” or “l6” and probably an actual human would make your comp decision. You take the byzantine incentive structure away and people just try to do a good job.

  • DylanMc6 [any, any]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    somebody please hack into amazon’s services so that they can tell amazon shoppers the truth about jeff bezos. seriously!

  • anugeshtu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 hours ago

    The one thing which COULD justify it, is technical debt. A programming language not supported anymore or in short-term/mid-term, bus factor, too much knowledge transfer, etc. But yeah, lots of times it’s “business as usual” just for “progress” and fancy buzzwords.

    • sping@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Golang is technical debt in language form. A language that gained limited and now sagging popularity, for good reason. I hate to work in Java but hate golang more. It’s the lightsaber of programming languages. I’ve got shit to do give me blasters and all the rest and I don’t want to wank myelf off about how I did it all with channels.

  • chunes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I apologize for bashing Java so hard in the past. I wish everyone wrote everything in Java these days. Digital life would be so much better.

  • fubarx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    14 hours ago

    The whole thing is pegging my BS meter, including letting an L5 deploy without a code and architecture review, TC, and the fact that they’re posting this and claiming they’re still there.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’ve seen some garbage slide through code reviews. Most people don’t do them well.

      I’m doing contract work at a big multinational company, and I saw a syntax error slide through code review the other day. Just, like, too many parenthesis, the function literally wouldn’t work. (No, they don’t have automated unit tests or CI/CD. Yes, that’s insane. No, I don’t have any power to fix that, but I am trying anyway). It’s not hard to imagine something more subtle like a memory leak getting through.

      In my experience, people don’t want to say “I think this is all a bad idea” if you have a large code review. A couple years ago, a guy went off and wrote a whole DSL for a task. Technically, it’s pretty impressive. It was, however, in my opinion, wholly unnecessary for the task at hand. I objected to this and suggested we stick with the serviceable, supported, and interoperable approach we had. The team decided to just move forward with his solution, because he’d spent time on it and it was ready to go. So I can definitely see a bunch of people not wanting to make waves and just signing off on something big.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      I’ve got a few friends who work at Amazon, and while the story certainly sounds embellished and a bit too “just-so”, the corporate attitude of make-work to justify a promotion even when its a waste of time and resources rings true as a bell.

      Did this guy actually oversee a fully transition to a new service and waste a bunch of internal time and money for a system that’s sub-optimal by any conceivable measure? Idk, maybe. If he’d just written “Twitter” instead of “Amazon”, I’d have taken it at face value no problem.

      Did this guy author an overly-complex plan as part of his promotional material, get it vetted and reviewed and rubber stamped by a bunch of friendly higher-ups because they wanted to justify his promotion, and then stuck on a shelf marked “Maybe we’ll do this in 2029 if we’re not busy with something else”? Equally likely.

      Does Amazon have a bunch of bread and butter break-fix work they could be dedicating staff to, rather than chasing the next digital White Whale so they can feel cutting edge? Yeah, no shit. Absolutely.

      • mcv@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I believe it. I don’t work at Amazon, but I’ve seen proudly launched pieces of shiny crap support promotions at other companies.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I can’t speak to this situation, but broadly speaking I am familiar with general messed up stuff like this as well as perhaps adjusting some fine details to make the scenario relatable to an audience unfamiliar with the specifics of the real situation and/or obfuscating the details so that the person doesn’t out themselves to someone else familiar with the specifics enough to recognize.

      The broad strokes seem plausible and any oddities in details I consider to be less important and/or understandable if it was tweaked for an internet audience.

  • VirtuePacket@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Sounds about right. There is no longer any incentive to focus on maintenance and incremental improvement (the stuff that actually keeps the lights on and the revenue flowing). It’s all about the new and shiny–even when it results in regression.

    • myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Which is why AI and vibe coding will survive. Besides the part where it’s not my code, the company owns it. The fuck do I care how good it is. If it works and gets me a promoted or moved to a new spot in a different company. Heck yeah. Issues down the road are not my problem.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Personal project: page load takes under 10kB and any button or link loads in millisecond.

        Work project: Fuck it 26MB page load. It’s not like the pages load in under 5s before anyway.

        • T156@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 hours ago

          The personal project is a matter of personal pride, whereas for work, any old thing will do, as long as it meets the requirements.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I fought for getting a 4/5 rating at an old job and gave lots of examples. Their argument was that I didn’t deserve it because those were just expected. I pointed out my work compared to others in my team and was told that it compares across the company, not the team. I kept causing a fuss about it because I was so angry about it and finally my manager said something about the bonuses has already been communicated and people would be angry to get less. I was confused because I didn’t want more money, I was just offended they said I was performing on average when I was going above and beyond every day. It was also really embarrassing to me. If they’d just said the rating doesn’t affect anything except your bonus I wouldn’t have even cared.

    The whole thing is all BS.

    • bitchkat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      At one job, my manager had a spreadsheet that he was tapping away at during my review. He had the audacity to tell me that he had to downgrade some things so that he wouldn’t have to go to a committee to defend at the individual or group level.

      I transferred to a different product.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I don’t work at Amazon, but we have a similar system. I’ve gone all-in on a couple of subordinates saying they deserved a 4/5 for this or that work. And because they were new-hires, I eventually got the grades punched through after a bunch of hemming and hawing.

      Also advocated for my own higher-than-average marks on a few occasions. And just arguing the case gave me the grade as often as not. If everyone in the department had been as stubborn and insistent, I don’t know that they’d have given the whole floor these grades. But the squeaky wheel…

    • cub Gucci@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Haha, the same. Was doing great, supported customer calls, onboarding new engineers, along with ongoing incoming tickets and got 3/5, wrote a few good and a dozen bad RFCs.

      Then the manager had the audacity to ask why I am changing the company with a 40% raise. I could’ve asked for promotion, he said.

    • 1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      12 hours ago

      You will soon become just as jaded as the rest of us, and stop expecting your company to appreciate you. It wont feel good but you can change jobs often and get your salary up without any feelings of illusional loyalty.

    • Natanael@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      finally my manager said something about the bonuses has already been communicated and people would be angry to get less

      That’s because they have a fixed budget and the proportions are tied to evaluated performance tiers, increasing your rating would contractually require them to compensate you more from the same pool of money

      • Feyd@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        12 hours ago

        You’re falling for the “we’ve constructed this machine to tell you no so you can’t argue with us” ploy

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Nah, that’s bogus. It’s a private company, they can do what they want. They could have absolutely given OP the 5/5 rating, and just had them sign something saying that they were content with the bonus appropriate to a 4/5 rating. No one would have had to receive a penny less.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          It’s very annoying to have managers say their hands are tied when they very well could go to bat for you with their superiors. I was lucky to have one manager really push for me in the past like that. It’s rare.

      • 1984@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        12 hours ago

        That fixed budget is what they always say. The budget for the company is their problem, not yours.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Yeah, no shit, thank you for repeating what I said. The point being I never cared about the money and didn’t even understand it was only about the money. I only wanted recognition.

  • criss_cross@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Yeah this was my experience when I worked there. Driving goals and doing good work isn’t enough. You need a fancy project to demonstrate “expanded scope” otherwise your promo would get rejected.

    Sometimes things worked the way you wanted and people got promoted doing their normal job. A lot of times though there were a lot of fancy projects built to get people promos that suckers got stuck with the bill on.

    This ain’t a case of one dude scamming the system as much as it is institutional rot from red tape.

  • DupaCycki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    18 hours ago

    You write clean code and you get replaced in 2 months, because everyone can work on that code.

    You write an unreadable mess that no raise will convince other employees to work on and suddenly your holiday requests don’t get declined anymore.

    • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Reminds me of the time when we wrote an internal tool with strict SOLID principles. As new programmers came on, they had no idea what was going on cause no one in college told them about design patterns. Most of the OG’s quit soon after and the new guys remained.

    • curiousaur@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      14 hours ago

      These days it’s also because you want the AI to get confused by your code too. If it’s too clean you’ll have a PM with cursor making PRs wondering why your salary is justified.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          If the code actually works and is vaguely important, I think you are right.

          If anyone ever has to fix it because it’s also broken on top of being a mess, well they aren’t quite so safe. Maybe if you are always available to fix it same day, but if you ever go on vacation and it hits the fan while you are unreachable…

      • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        In my experience, nope. Assuming it works as promised, the situation (usually) gets viewed as a skill gap. You think their code is bad, because you don’t understand it well enough. Unless you are personally willing to redevelop it, of course.

    • wheezy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Was in this position at Microsoft for two years. I already hated them because I ended up working for them after they acquired my smaller company. Pennies on the dollar, massive layoffs beforehand, fired literally all the most important people (which is why I wasn’t fired, I really am just trying to collect a paycheck and do nothing more).

      Anyway, ended up basically being placed in a middleman position that I quickly realized didn’t need to exist. Basically, spent two years slowing down communication between my companies team and the existing Microsoft team. Literally, I just kept the two teams from directly communicating and going through me for everything. I think I wrote less than 1000 lines of code during that time.

      And no, I didn’t like my team either from the original company. They were all new hires prior to us being acquired and they fired everyone on my team that had worked on the project for nearly 5 years. So, didn’t feel bad about slowing them down either.

      Basically a shitty startup that milked it’s employees with hopes of Microsoft becoming our customer. Encouraging people to exercise their options only to sell the company for pennies on the dollar and fire them.

      Got through two years of slowing down an awful genocide supporting company before the layoffs finally got me.

      Was a good run.

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Something I find cool about this book is that it’s so well known that people who haven’t even read it will often gesture towards it to make a point. It reminds me of how “enshittification” caught on because so many people were glad to have a word for what they’d been experiencing.

      It’s a useful phrase to have. Recently a friend was lamenting that they’d had a string of bad jobs, and they were struggling to articulate what it was that they wanted from a job. They were at risk of blaming themselves for the fact that they’d struggled to find anything that wasn’t soul sucking, because they were beginning to doubt whether finding a fulfilling job was even possible.

      They were grasping at straws trying to explain what would make them feel fulfilled, and I cut in to say “all of this is basically just saying you don’t care what job you have, as long as it’s a non-bullshit job”. They pondered it for a moment before emphatically agreeing with me. It was entertaining to see their entire demeanour change so quickly: from being demoralised and shrinking to being defiant and righteously angry at the fucked up world that turns good jobs into bullshit. Having vocabulary to describe your experiences can be pretty magical sometimes

      • Arcka@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        IMO if your survival depends on doing a ‘job’ (especially if you’re employed by someone else), then it’s better to look for fulfilment in your personal life and realize the job is a means to survive and hopefully also fund what you really want to do for yourself and your loved ones.

        Work to live, not live to work.

  • TomMasz@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    19 hours ago

    You get the behavior your incentives encourage, whether you realize what those behaviors are or not.