We are running a survey to help us improve the experience for all of our members. If you see the survey appear, please take the time to tell us about your experience if you can.
So I'm looking through my 'old code' and I came across some code that is clear and concise. The ingredients of good codemonkeying. But I cannot help but to think that the 'next guy' who may have picked up my work wouldn't understand it. It is a complex system in VHDL. It used about 70+% of the fabric in the only FPGA chip that would fit within the physical design parameters.
Anybody picking it up would be forced to use my code, because to 're-invent' that wheel, they had better be good at VHDL and know the requirements really well.
Otherwise they would also have to redesign the hardware, and shoot the R&D cost back up again. My gut feeling is that *they* would try to work with my code until they got fustrated and decided to re-write it. A re-write would then force them into a larger FPGA, thus changing the hardware.
Knowing this, I see my 'fabulous' code being a total waste of time. It is ever so clear in the code itself. But any new guy picking it up would have to be savvy: yet even "the big brain on Brad" won't get any kudos from management for taking over the project (using my work). Leaving him\her with feeling dissatisfied with the project.
It just makes me fustrated knowing that IP can be so easily lost when *they* lose the people they relied upon to do the R&D effort.
I guess this is another rant at stupid management people: penny-wise and pound foolish. "They" invested alot of R&D to get that widget running, and without my help I'm sure they are stagnated. If not, they spent plenty acquiring the talent needed to pick up where I left it.
I am sure that you veterans have been-there-done-that too. No matter how much you document a design, there will always be IP that didn't get written down that is critical to the project. Part of that missing IP is my fault, but I can easily defer that to management's *need* to reduce cost and time by not allowing me to re-annotate the entire project after it was successful: leaving that "for another day." (which never came while I was there).
That re-annotation of the design documents is critical to solidifying the IP investment and save many-many man-hours in reworking a 'cutting edge' R&D design.
My warning to you managers (I've been one myself, so I know the position well) is to ensure a full loop-closure is done after the widget has been successfully deployed and capture all of the details needed to 'swap' engineers and still maintain the large investement made during the initial R&D phases. Budget for it!
--Cpt. Vince Foster 2nd Cannon Place Fort Marcy Park, VA
Extraordinary code requires extraordinary comments.