I've worked for 4 companies that used india companies as outsourced resources. Not only do they suck as code writing they aren't much cheaper. In the long run, they are much much more expensive.

If you look at the economics of hiring an india company, they lure you with the idea of getting more for less so each developer is worth 1/3 the cost, so you can afford to throw 3-4 times as many people for the cost of american developers. Thats what they sell executives on.

However, they take about 10x the time to deliver a product, that upon code review has to be rewritten anyways. All four companies pretty nearly went bankrupt saving all that money because they were sued by their real clients who had to accept the shitty code that doesn't work.

I literally remember looking through code where there were supposed to be work queues and couldnt figure out how it was working. The truth, it was never written, but they claimed it was. Whenever they did a demo for our internal team, they had some guy in india, manually triggering the process code, but they claimed it was the work queue system they spent 5 weeks implementing.

In my experience they aren't even cheaper than hiring citizens

I agree with this. What I have experienced is that they get more people on the project, by a ratio of 1 to 3. If you need 1 US programmer, you will get 3 off shore resources. Because on paper, 3 is still cheaper than 1 US programmer.

But these 3 take 10x longer to find a solution, and you have to rewrite a lot of their work anyways. I'm working with a team now thats been working for 6 months on a solution, that took me and one other person less than a couple weeks to complete.

Another nasty trend I am seeing is that senior managers are also H1B so who do they hire? More H1B's from overseas companies.

Even 5-8 years ago, a team was made up of less than 30-40% of H1B or off shore resources. Now I'm seeing the opposite. Less than 20% of the team is US programmers and 80% H1B or off shore resources.

Sound's like a lot of deals small timers bring to the table.

"Can you build me a yahoo type website? Here I have $500!"

Having been an angular developer since angularjs, heres my take on it.

I've been a backend developer developing in java or c# .net for several years. I've used anything from php to python as well. I began using angularjs to resolve a ui issue on one of my projects that did not have enough resources for a ui developer. It was easy to pick up and learn. Using angularjs and bootstrap I was able to put together a nice looking ui that was acceptable.

I think I learned the basics in over a weekend. That specific project got more attention from the higher ups so it needed a focused developer for the backend and front end and there was no angularjs developer on the team nor hireable because it was so new.

I basically supported the development of the app as a full stack developer.

I think being an angular developer is one thing, and rewarding from a "can find a job around the corner" as it is in high demand. But you make yourself more in demand by being a full stack developer. I get calls from recruiters where the preference is full stack and the pay rate seems to be better than if it was just angular by itself. Not that being just an angular developer provides bad pay.

I don't think angular is the next big thing as someone else pointed out. Angular from angularjs to angular 6+ now has been a "next big thing" for some 8 years now. Google is pushing it so it gets a nice build community and enterprise adoption. As is reactjs. There seems to be enough work around for both reactjs and angular since they have been around for at least 5+ years.

Hope this helps.

I agree. Incompetent men can screw up projects just like incompetent women. The only difference is, its not taboo for developers to speak to managers about the incompetent male whereas it is considered taboo to speak against incompetent women. In my case, I made mention of the problems that was causing the problems with her project and I was pulled into a meeting with the director. Mind you, I take on more riskier projects and for the most part have a great on time on budget delivery record, therefore I was just spoken to vs let go like in other cases.

In that department, I saw incompetent men have less than 4 week lifecycle where they were given extra chances but at the end of about 4 weeks if they haven't improved, they were let go. She's been there for over 2+ years and promoted because her code sucked.

But the one female had 2 PC stereotypes going for her. She was female and she was also muslim.

I agree. In my 20+ years as a developer, I've had the chance to work with many women in the industry.

For the most part I've respected most of them. The one's I tend to respect and they also get the respect of the team are the ones who can figure things out on their own, contribute ideas to the team even though they get shot down; because sometimes they do get great ideas but also know not every idea is a winner, when the team works late; they work late, when the team goes out for team events; they join and become part of the crowd. The one's that don't get any respect are the ones that after contributing one idea and get shot down, escalate saying its because they are a female, even tho they are behind on work, they clock out at 5pm leaving the work to be picked up by another team member, never figure out anything even tho the concept could have been googled, and want guys to do work for them because they are female, yet complain all the time about not getting equal treatment.

The latter seems more over the past 5+ years. I think it has to do with the progressive left movements that are forcing women down development teams throats. Most women today aren't qualified but get hired because they are female. I've actually seen incompetent women programmers get promoted to team lead because they couldn't program but no one wanted to fire them. My recent job, that I recently left, there was a muslim female who was so fucking entitled, and would always say she'd rather be programming and all the devs including female devs would have a joke, where they would say, No they don't want her to program.

She's taken every small low risk project and turned them into $500k-$1000k fiascos when the project estimate was for less than 1 month for 3 people including her. Her 1 month projects are always finished about 9 months later and clients usually refuse to take delivery or would have to be coerced into taking delivery yet she still works there after screwing up 3 projects pretty badly since i've been working with her. There are other female programmers, not much maybe 1 for every 20 male developers. But she's the most hated by all developers male and female alike.

Ironically because of her more people end up in management meetings for insulting her or disrespecting her in some way. Like I was called in because in a meeting I had my laptop open and was working while she was talking. Context of it was she kept picking up her cell phone every 3-5 minutes and would talk for like 10-15 minutes each time. So I got tire of waiting and opened up my laptop and tried to get some work done so she went and told the director how I'm disrespectful to her in meeting and won't pay attention.

Women who can work, does the work, takes pride in their work, ask for help, offers help, gets respect. Women who don't work, always late in finishing work, yet clock out and leave early are never respected. It sounds like a great meritocracy to me. Because the guys are treated in the same way.

I largely agree. Agile has been the bane of my existence. The problem with Agile is that there are so many things that looks good on paper which is why they sell so much of it. But as a whole, my experience is that it stretches development time by 2-4 times the duration and increases cost because now you have a product manager, a scrum master, a scrum coach and the client advocate who does the work of what used to be one experienced PM.

A team is only good as its developers. Give me 1-2 good developers and I can deliver under budget and on time under any process even agile. Have a traditional makeup of 20% good and 80% bad, the developer is so busy doing stupid agile processes like pair programming, and showcase setup so each sprint you only get 30% productivity and everything goes into setting up for the stupid showcase. Just let 1-2 developers work with a full understanding of the requirements and allow them to speak directly to client for constant feedback and you have a successful project, every time.

I hate that inception and user stories drive the requirements and most people enforcing it doesn't even understand whats needed for a good developer to do good work.

Good point. 3-4 days of coding reference changes and the intro of a new bug just because of one guy who thought it important enough to change one reference of the variable name, instead of working on important bugs or new features.

I understand. In these cases, you have a 98% chance of being right. You are also right that people who are producing and delivering very often times don't have time for little mundane things like this.

Bad developers always look for ways to make themselves seem relevant and appear they are contributors but most tickets they work on are tickets they've opened, which are BS tickets that fix stupid shit like grammar or spelling, but looking at the git activity log, make it seem like they are active on the project.

I'm only referencing the fact that this is a Stanford project so just maybe, giving him some benefit of the doubt, he may be a good developer and also a "politics (social,gender,etc)" pussy.

The author is probably a shit programmer anyway; nothing of value was lost.

I'm not sure if you can make that generalization. I've run into a few prima donna's who think they are god's gift to programming and most are wrong, but every now and then, the shits are correct.

Saying that, MAJORITY of over sensitive prima donna programmers are pretty shit programmers.

The big problem I see with this is, opening a bug ticket for a variable name. Whether he felt justified or not, he made a few project noobie blunders.

1) If he really felt it was worth addressing, he should have brought it up to the project administrator, not through the bug system; it wasn't a bug. 2) He changed the variable name via repo checkout, when the usual process, if it was a legitimate bug, would be to raise a ticket and let it be assigned to the original developer, or get distributed.

He obviously has a flagrant disregard for good processes that make working on source code manageable and I think Duncan's response "shit-disturbing" is appropriate.

I don't care if it was "iPoundYouInTheAssWhileMyBuddyGetsHead". Its not a bug. If you've ever built a complex programming software, you know what a developer uses for variables is one of the lowest priorities. I don't bring it up in code review unless its so generic like 'a', 'b', or not descriptive enough in an area of code where a better name would also serve as an ad hoc documentation, its not worth mentioning even if it was an intended pun. This is so reminiscent of the CoC BS thats trying to infiltrate the open source community.

The funny part is, it looks like the decision to participate in the community was taken away from him as he was locked out and banned. Now he's trying to make it seem like it was his decision not to be an active participant. Sour grapes anyone?

The one thing I can't understand is, software development is as gender, race neutral as you get. No one knows your color, gender, religion, sexual preference, unless you go out of your way to advertise it somehow.

The fact that one thread specifically emphasized code rejection based on people of color, just blew my mind. As a project lead, I have very little time to code, code review, documentation, and all the other shit I do day to day, let alone do research on a few random contributors to find out that they are colored people and reject on that basis.

At the end of the day, pull requests are rejected because the code is bad, period.

They have a method to their madness which is disheartening. First the main culprit writes a simple intro letter advocating their CoC. If its met with less than favorable acceptance, they next phase is they have a bunch of their followers write shit like, "if its not a safe place for people like me, I will never contribute." or "you are jeopardizing 1000's of contributors but sticking up for one or two bad developer."

Then they systematically try to wear you down to the point where you just say, "I'll give it a go" just to get them off your back.

But if you look through all the people doing the SJW swarm, none of them contribute to shit. They get contribution credits for adding to the BS that is CoC.

I really wish, gitHub would better define contribution credit to software contributions not making grammar fixes or failed contributions.

I really hate the concept of being blocked from a project you've spent hours, days, months and years contributing to and making a difference on the project because you posted something on Twitter or another forum which has nothing to do with the project. Its a lot like the situation with Brendan Eich. He's given so much to the community. His contributions are the primary reasons why I have a job.

Then one day he contribute a couple thousand dollars to an organization that happens to support anti-gay sentiment, and then it becomes, thanks for your years of contribution, but fuck you and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Many of these fucking SJW's wouldn't even have a job without this man.

I really believe that a CoC is not a solution to anything. Meritocracy, especially in code production should be the one and only one thing that matters.

I have to put up with SJW at work places and its a fucking pain in the ass. Case in point, I worked at a bank and I worked with a guy who had a pretty abrasive personality. I found out its was more of a front because he's had to deal with so many shitty developers he now doesn't give you the benefit of the doubt but expects you to prove yourself to him before he warms up to you. Yeah its a bit shitty but I understand where his frustration comes from. Furthermore, he's said things in his frustration, that could be misconstrued to be very insensitive. But he is also an industry wide well know programmer in the banking industry.

After a few lesser developers, which by that I mean developers whose unit test if they write it at all always fails, code is always below par, missed delivery timelines almost all the time with a ton of excuses, but also punches out everyday before 5pm, started complaining about this guys behavior and how they thought his abusive personality is the reason why their code sucked so bad. The fact that this guy gave the bank almost 10 years and was one of the primary driving forces of the banking system they have didn't even come up as a consideration.

IMO, the response to these ass holes complaining about him should have been, "eat shit and die", but they asked the guy to enroll in employee sensitivity classes and anger management classes.

The one thing I realized is that the people pulling the SJW card in tech always, always is people who do not contribute much to any project yet when the project is successful like an open source project they take credit like they worked on 90% of the project but their contributions are so miniscule that it was a grammar fix to the README file or some other small shit like that.

I wished github wouldn't give contribution credit to people whose contributions weren't accepted, no coding contribution, and it falls below a like 3% threshold. Right now it makes it easy to contribute nothing of value and makes it seem like you were a contributor like the CoralineAda bitch. All she's done is open tickets and try to get her CoC accepted and she's given credit like she was a coding contributor. I tried to look up her profile and couldn't find anything that indicated she was a programmer at all. Most of her activity is her stupid CoC and trying to push it on other projects.

Agree. But my experience is that people who want you to take coding tests are the equivalent of the robot phone calls. Its so automated there's no personal aspect to the hiring process.

I understand hiring new people is a very difficult and time consuming thing cause you can do coding tests and still get bad hires.

Bottom line though, I want to speak to a real person who can answer questions vs the HR person who doesn't know anything who gives you the coding test and then process you to the next step.

If I'm happy with the interview process and I feel I have a genuine interest in the company and the salary is within my range, I have no problems doing coding tests or coding projects.

I've literally had people tell me that salary, questions will be answered once I satisfy my end with the coding test.

The biggest problem I have with coding test is not that I would have to do it. But there is no reciprocity.

They won't tell you anything about the job until you take the test.

I take the test pass it and find out that it is 20k below what I am making.

Then they are dumb enough to ask you, "Why do you want to work here?". If that isn't the dumbest question, I dont know what is. You're going through the interview process to decide why you want to work there. But many hirers have this attitude of here's our website, now we want people who are excited to work for us.

I've had more bad experience in doing coding tests, than positive. So I don't waste my time if they aren't willing to reciprocate. If they spend like 20-30 mins answering your questions, about the job, team culture, I have no problem doing the extra work.

Now if I get an email saying they are excited about my resume, but won't spend any time to explain, these things, I just delete it.

Whats worse is for even if you do the coding test, there is no dialogue. Like why did you do this vs doing that. If it doesn't conform to some eggheads way of programming, you don't even get an email back saying someone else was selected.