Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Relatively crappy pay, complex toolchains, long build times, layer upon layer of (really bad) legacy code, badly specified (if they're specified) protocols between subsystems, subsystems that are completely opaque (no source code provided), homegrown OS's or older RTOS's, subset-of-C to keep it safe(r), tricky debugging environments and if you're really unlucky anemic hardware.

I hope I didn't miss anything but I wouldn't be surprised if I did.



Yeah, I think you missed something. The "software architects, heavy enterprisey tooling, and minions" approach to development where some of the architects could be good developers, but they don't develop, and the minions are often not that good and also not given any autonomy, so they are in a state of learned helplessness and just do what they're told without much thinking or initiative. It results in over-abstracted, over-complicated, slow, unreliable, and sometimes just stupid code.


Fair enough, yes. That's hopefully not all of them though but I don't doubt that many of the older companies work like that.


Most car companies are, in fact, quite old. Their big suppliers (who are often even worse at software, if you can believe that) are also quite old.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: