Timeline for Why do ads for s/w engineers always say they "offer a fast-paced environment"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 2011 at 1:58 | comment | added | Kyralessa | "Fast-paced" is a positive if it's the opposite of "no one at the company knows how to make a decision." | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 15:47 | comment | added | msvb60 | @Chuck - Exactly. | |
| Mar 19, 2011 at 1:15 | comment | added | Chuck Stephanski | Also why do you need to imply that you're using Agile by saying you're fast-paced? Why not just say you're using Agile? | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 15:42 | comment | added | Dunk | I disagree that waterfall isn't fast-paced. If you measure start to finish, where finish means you incorporated all the customers requirements, then there is no evidence that agile performs any faster. From my personal experience, agile ends up slower since the refactoring tends to take longer and longer as the project gets nearer to completion because the code base has grown larger and the lack of an overall system design hampers adding new functionality without affecting a lot of other areas of the code. | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 14:49 | comment | added | acmshar | "Second, it implies that the company or team is small and light-weight, and not bound up in miscellaneous process" This is immediately what I thought of. I understand some negative readings of 'fast paced', but I agree with Ethel that it can be a positive. While you don't want quick turnaround on a dialysis machine's software (life and death), who wants 2 code reviews and paperwork just to show some people a prototype? | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 9:05 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki | ||
| Mar 17, 2011 at 23:51 | comment | added | Ethel Evans | @Chuck . . . thought about this a bit more, and decided the point isn't really off-topic. Thanks for the feedback, I updated the post. | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 23:51 | history | edited | Ethel Evans | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1325 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2011 at 23:38 | comment | added | Ethel Evans | @Chuck - I agree that it is relative to the project. I'm not trying to say all projects should be fast-paced. My specific point above is that fast-paced shouldn't mean, "Constant emergencies and shoddy work", but "able to deliver significant business value frequently". What you are mentioning - that not all projects should be fast-paced - is very true, but not really on-topic (since they wouldn't be advertising as a 'fast-paced' work environment). But, yes, there are some projects that need a slower, more in-depth approach, and they have advantages as well for devs, depending on goals. | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 21:47 | comment | added | Chuck Stephanski | But completing projects "quickly" is not de facto good. Projects should be completed WELL. Quickly is also meaningless because it's completely relative to the project. If you're writing the software to control the space station I don't think you'll be completing that quickly. | |
| Mar 17, 2011 at 21:00 | history | edited | Ethel Evans | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 35 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2011 at 20:50 | history | edited | Ethel Evans | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added paragraph specifically about why 'fast-paced' is good.
|
| Mar 17, 2011 at 20:42 | history | edited | Ethel Evans | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Made the response more specific and less about my personal situation
|
| Mar 17, 2011 at 20:30 | history | answered | Ethel Evans | CC BY-SA 2.5 |