[OT] I got a JOB!!!

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...

Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day  
job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any  
circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by  
hobby work or on the side.

In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current  
customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the  
educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.

Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD  
proselytizing.

--  

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!

Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  

Seek and yee shall find. Basic law of the universe.

Good luck! But keep your options open.

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 5/16/2017 11:49 AM, Tim Wescott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Congratulations! (and good luck making the adjustment; the idea of having
to BE somewhere early in the morning is anathema to me!).

Quoted text here. Click to load it

The folks who make displays?  (or, a different "Planar")

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It will be interesting to hear your observations of how things
(i.e., design) differ when seeing the corporate world *fresh*.
(even if you don't publicly share them, I suspect you will
"notice" them, at some level)

I think most of us only see it *once*, "fresh" -- and, at that
time, have little other experience with which to contrast it.

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On Tue, 16 May 2017 12:14:42 -0700, Don Y wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Them guys.  Cool stuff.  Not a spinning motor or a low-level signal in  
sight, but lots of big pretty video displays.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I suspect I'll be distracted by getting into the 9-5 routine for the long  
term -- but yes, it'll be interested.

Planar seems like a very happy company, and they've made a point to work  
with me on the whole customer transition thing (basically if I don't mess  
up with them, they're letting me support my existing projects).  So I'm  
looking forward to it.

I'm replacing a coworker of mine from over 15 years ago (I heard of the  
position opening up because I was invited to her retirement party), and  
one of my other coworkers works there, so in a sense it's family already.

--  
www.wescottdesign.com

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 5/16/2017 12:41 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

In hindsight, it was "educational" when I look back on transitioning
*out* of the 9-5 routine.  Just the idea that *I* could control my
schedule, what I worked on, the order that I tackled aspects of the
project, etc.  No need to justify an equipment purchase or worry
about exceeding that budget.  And, no time wasted in unproductive
meetings!

Of course, it was ALSO enlightening to discover there was noone
stocking the "stationery cabinet".  And, no one ordering the
parts for the prototypes -- or, chasing down shipping errors.
And, any mistakes were *all* accountable to *me*!  :-/

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Cool!  As a 9-5, I often had employment agreements that wanted to
poke fingers in what I did outside of work.  In one case, a prospective
employer grumbled that he "thought HE would satisfy my need to engage in
intellectual pursuits -- what MORE would you want?" (this being the
red flag that had me walk away from their offer)

This persisted into contract work -- where clients would want to "own"
everything I did for them ("Sure!  But, that means you can't benefit
from anything that I did for the PREVIOUS client; I'll have to bill you
to reinvent all that stuff...")

[If you're "just looking for a paycheck", you view things differently than
if you're looking for interesting challenges to consume the hours of your life]

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Even better -- as you'll have the inside dope on the place instead of
stumbling into it (at some personal expense).

Good luck!


Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 5/16/2017 2:01 PM, Don Y wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Unless the politics have changed dramatically in the last 20 years,
luck won't help you.

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On Tue, 16 May 2017 14:01:48 -0700, Don Y wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it



I think I basically had the job when I mentioned at her retirement party  
that I was seriously looking.  Once they realized that I was _really_  
seriously looking _at Planar_, the two former coworkers of mine basically  
dragged me and her manager together and said "hire this man!"

I figured that if it was a nasty place to work there would have been  
reservations of the "Tim, I'll go put in a word for you if you _really_  
want".

--  

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 5/16/2017 3:09 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yup, I used a similar reasoning when deciding which RFQ's from my
colleagues' firms to ignore/pursue:
    "I think I'll take a pass on your RFQ, Bob"
    "Why?  It's *perfect* for you!"
    "Yeah, but I've been paying attention to all your casual
     complaints about how 'screwed up' the company is and figure
     it's not likely to treat a contractor any better than an
     employee!"


Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 17/05/17 07:01, Don Y wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yes to all that. I stopped signing such agreements unmodified
some years ago. Now, where the proposed agreement says that
they own "any invention... etc" I just add "related to the
business of <employer>". Because I invent in many different
fields, I need that protection. I haven't had push-back.
They want me *because* I'm a polyglot.

It's possible that if, for example, I invent a new kind of
office chair while working for them, that they could claim
that their employees all use office chairs, so it's related
to their business... but I don't think that would last long
in court. They don't *sell* chairs.

There was also a remarkably sane ruling some years back in
the Australian High Court, where a software guy brought a
small library of his own, and enhanced it substantially
while working for the company, and after he left they
attacked him for continuing to use it. He claimed to have
re-written it, and because he had done it "to the best of
his ability and knowledge" both times, it was substantially
the same thing. The High Court acknowledged that they had
hired him because he had those abilities, and the company
could not, after he had left, restrain him from practicing
his acquired skill and knowledge for someone else, so their
case was thrown out.

Clifford Heath.

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Time Division Duplex?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

"Really Senior Embedded Guy".

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Test Driven Design.

--  
www.wescottdesign.com

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Be prepared to meet some people that believe
X works /because/ all the unit tests for X
are passed and the console shows a green light.

Usually they have never been introduced to the
concept that "you can't test quality into a product".
Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly
beneficial, but are not sufficient.

But I'm sure you know that!

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes me  
think early about how something really should work, and there are finer-
grained tests to make sure that if I did something really dumbass it gets  
caught.

Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion  
that you can test in quality.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yea verily!!

--  

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
while they are very useful when making incremental
improvements during design, they can be a real
impediment in a few months/years time. The problem is
that over time people forget which tests demonstrate
required properties, and which are merely ensuring
behaviour of implementation artifacts. At that point
people are afraid to make changes that break tests,
even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the
codebase has become ossified.

Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on
getters/setters, and/or changing visibility solely
to enable unit tests.

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for  
that to be an issue.  Good to know!

--  

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 17/05/17 09:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

TDD works where it gives you *another way* to state your expectations.
Testing getter/setters never says more about the getter/setter than
is said by their declaration, so the tests have zero value.

The important thing is to say "how else can I state this requirement?".
If you're using truly succinct code, such as strongly-typed Haskell,
there often is simply *no other way* to describe the expected behavior.
That's why FP aficionados scoff at TDD zealots. Programming with strong
types is always better than using TDD.

Clifford Heath.


Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 17/05/17 00:41, Clifford Heath wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Er, that's not TDD, that is Unit Tests. To be overly
simplistic, TDD is a strategy for generating Unit Tests.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Strong typing is very beneficial, but is completely
insufficient. As one of an infinite number of trivial
examples, consider testing for X>Y when you should
be testing for Y>X.

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 17/05/17 18:35, Tom Gardner wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Good code, in the best languages, can be read like a spec.
When that happens, your code and your test is the same thing,
expressed in the same way. Nothing is achieved by writing it
twice.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you got the code wrong, you'll get the test wrong too.
That what I mean by "another way to describe" expected behaviour.

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 17/05/17 10:03, Clifford Heath wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Sigh.

Consider a spec such as "95th percentile latency of
less than 10ms". Good luck expressing that in your
code; testing it is difficult enough.

More generally, consider that specifications normally
deal with what needs to be achieved, and shouldn't
specify how they are to be achieved. That is
particularly apparent in hardware/software/mechanical
systems, where the implementation of required behaviour
could be in discrete transistors, HDL, software,
or sheets of metal.

Having pointed that out, I know what you are trying
to say and it is worth achieving. But in the real
world it is never that simple.


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Not necessarily. I suggest you read comp.risks
for many many many examples where your presumptions
are too simplistic in the real world.

I get the feeling your experience in this area
is with academic problems - which are valuable
pedagogical examples, but no more.

Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!!
On 17/05/17 19:31, Tom Gardner wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

We had this discussion before. I don't want to do it again.

I personally wrote most of a million of lines of code which is
performing daily core management functions on over ten million
enterprise computers, including almost all the computers used
in the armed forces of three OECD nations, as well as a number
of banks, oil companies, national postal services, etc.

I'm well aware of the requirements that cannot even be
expressed, let alone tested. I'm also well aware of the
general state of ignorance about what *can* be achieved.

Any more ignorant accusations?


Site Timeline