Complicated yes, but they actually don't change so often. In such big projects everything is planned well in advance and the requirements gathering from the stakeholders is insane. So once it is built they don't change much and when they do is more likely to add new functionality. With a good architecture that shouldn't be to complex to achieve from the development stand point.
in my experience, most of enterprise application do not have good architecture. I do not know why the bosses do not want good architecture. They just want to have a final product with low cost. They do not know the detail requirement, design and flow. They just think it is your responsibility to produce software which can create magic.
Yes that's true specially in companies where software support the business but it is not the business. Usually leadership doesn't understand the true value of spending time and money on building software that will save time and money on the long run. Most of the time the business priorities are different from what you're building but what you're building support those priorities so it needs to be finished quick no matter what. Striking the perfect balance between good enough and fast enough is the job of the architect/s and the development team.
The biggest challenging things are the developers/ architects can guess the correctly what the boss thinks of the building application.
We all know that cost, time and scope are three constraint to project quality. Most boss want lower cost, less time and high scope would much lower the quality. As the quality is a very vague words, most boss do not clearly define it but they want a good quality of product.
The software maintenance would be affordable to current project team. However, once the someone change in the project, the task of maintaining the software become a very difficult.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
It make the application much more complicated and often change. Crying
Complicated yes, but they actually don't change so often. In such big projects everything is planned well in advance and the requirements gathering from the stakeholders is insane. So once it is built they don't change much and when they do is more likely to add new functionality. With a good architecture that shouldn't be to complex to achieve from the development stand point.
in my experience, most of enterprise application do not have good architecture. I do not know why the bosses do not want good architecture. They just want to have a final product with low cost. They do not know the detail requirement, design and flow. They just think it is your responsibility to produce software which can create magic.
Yes that's true specially in companies where software support the business but it is not the business. Usually leadership doesn't understand the true value of spending time and money on building software that will save time and money on the long run. Most of the time the business priorities are different from what you're building but what you're building support those priorities so it needs to be finished quick no matter what. Striking the perfect balance between good enough and fast enough is the job of the architect/s and the development team.
The biggest challenging things are the developers/ architects can guess the correctly what the boss thinks of the building application.
We all know that cost, time and scope are three constraint to project quality. Most boss want lower cost, less time and high scope would much lower the quality. As the quality is a very vague words, most boss do not clearly define it but they want a good quality of product.
The software maintenance would be affordable to current project team. However, once the someone change in the project, the task of maintaining the software become a very difficult.