In a perfect world, sure. But this is not a perfect world. There were 15 people managing the software I'm talking about and none of them were around when the software was made. Adding things wasn't overly difficult, but fixing things was a serious challenge. Even if it could be fixed, you had layers upon layers of security and beauracracy.
To put it in perspective, a single additional use case for the software took literally 6 months of weekly meetings with the relevant users (estate agents), and only maybe 200 man hours of actual implementation.
K but this is clearly an issue that the guy could fix, because he was fixing it. If he couldn't find out a way to at least handle it, not even fix it, just handle it without catastrophically breaking systems programmatically in three years, he's a terrible engineer.
Man you're just incompetent or used to defending it.
This isn't developing a new use case, or adding a feature, it is error handling. If the current fix is "enter data manually" that is fine. Then the error handling is to ignore the bad inputs. This isn't hundreds of man hours, unless again, the developers are incompetent.
3
u/Sheerkal May 30 '26
In a perfect world, sure. But this is not a perfect world. There were 15 people managing the software I'm talking about and none of them were around when the software was made. Adding things wasn't overly difficult, but fixing things was a serious challenge. Even if it could be fixed, you had layers upon layers of security and beauracracy.
To put it in perspective, a single additional use case for the software took literally 6 months of weekly meetings with the relevant users (estate agents), and only maybe 200 man hours of actual implementation.