IBM Global Services seems to prefer hiring masochists.
They will deploy the most complicated solution they can (almost) keep running and then ask for more time and materials when they miss.
The FTEs at the company will want nothing to do with their Rube Goldberg sparkly bullshit and are all too happy to walk away and work on something else.
Nobody can make XML impenetrable like IBMGS can. It is both fascinating and horrifying to watch.
This is part of why my initial and strong reaction against most "Enterprise" patterns and libraries... It often leads to so much indirection and complexity, that those working with it don't ever stop to thing "why" they are doing things a certain way, and when new people come in to support said solution, they face a mountain of difficulty.
In the end, I tend to prefer discoverable code (hate angular because it is anti-discoverable), and when there are abstractions, prefer to keep them isolated and clean in purpose. It sometimes requires changes as requirements evolve, but then again, I've been in touch with enough people who've worked on projects I've started/built and haven't gotten any extreme WTFs about it.
We had a good convention for our Angular project that wasn't too bad. Certainly a lot more discoverable than the rails project I worked on before it.
I'd like to see a lot more formal work on discoverability. There are a lot of libraries being written by "smart" people who are behaving very stupidly right now.
They will deploy the most complicated solution they can (almost) keep running and then ask for more time and materials when they miss.
The FTEs at the company will want nothing to do with their Rube Goldberg sparkly bullshit and are all too happy to walk away and work on something else.
Nobody can make XML impenetrable like IBMGS can. It is both fascinating and horrifying to watch.