I started working at a company that is primarily C# oriented. We have a few people who like Java and JRuby, but a majority of programmers here like C#. I was hired because I have a lot of experience building web applications and because I lean towards newer technologies like JRuby on Rails or nodejs.
I have recently started on a project building a web application with a focus on getting a lot of stuff done in a short amount of time. The software lead has dictated that I use mvc4 instead of rails. That might be OK, except I don't know mvc4, I don't know C# and I am the only one responsible for creating the web application server and front-end UI.
Wouldn't it make sense to use a framework that I already know extremely well (Rails) instead of using mvc4? The reasoning behind the decision was that the tech lead doesn't know Jruby/rails and there would be no way to reuse the code.
Counter arguments:
-
He won't be contributing to the code and is, frankly, not needed on
this project. So, it doesn't really matter if he knows JRuby/rails or not. -
We actually can reuse the code since we have a lot of java apps that
JRuby can pull code from and vice-versa. In fact, he has dedicated
some resources to convert a Java library to C#, instead of just
running the Java library on the JRuby on Rails app. All because he
doesn't like Java or JRuby
I have built many web applications, but using something unfamiliar is causing some spin-up and I am unable to build an awesome application in as short of a time as I'm used to. This would be fine; learning new technologies is important in this field. The problem is, for this project we need to get a lot done fast.
At what point should a developer be allowed to choose his tools? Is this dependent on the company? Does my company suck or is this considered normal? Do greener pastures exist? Am I looking at this the wrong way?
Best Answer
I'd say you have to talk to the team lead and say something like:
This raises the issue of "skills-you-were-(assumedly)-hired-for" vs. "skills-you-need-now" and also shows that you're willing to learn the new skills, but that it will take longer to develop the new application as you are new to this tool-set. And you do want to show that you're willing to learn new skills. Not being open to learning new skills is a good way to ensure your employment ends when your skills are no longer needed.
As to your question at the end:
It usually depends on the company. If a company buys MS tools and standardizes everything on the VisualStudio platform and .NET framework, it could get very awkward if one developer insists on using Linux and C. That is normal. Exceptions might exist where the company is less fussy about the editors, such as letting developers choose Vi vs. Emacs, as long as the output is the same. I know some companies even let developers choose Windows vs. Linux, but the language they work in has very good support and runtimes for both OSs.
Why do companies do this? Consistency is one reason. It can be very difficult to debug things when the application is a patchwork of binaries built in the favourite languages/frameworks of various developers, built in different tools, and tested on very different systems. If all developers work on mostly similar set ups, those sorts of problems are resolved.
In your case, it sounds like you were hired to work in technology that is non-standard in this company. This seems strange to me, and you might want to talk to the person who hired you about why they wanted that.