rating for Softscape


posted
by
ib15
on
November 21, 2008
First things first, I'd like to get the formalities out of the way. My name is Igor and I'm currently an Engineering Manager at Softscape. I want to share some of my opinions and experiences at Softscape so that potential employees get another point of view. As you can tell, I'm not doing this anonymously since I feel like I shouldn't be writing anything here if I'm ashamed or afraid to put my name on it. Reading through the existing reviews, I find that the experiences reported by people seem to fall into one of two categories: either somewhere not too far above a job as an African diamond miner or, on the other end of the spectrum, a less stressful and better paying version of a massage chair tester. I believe that the truth is, as usual, somewhere in the middle.
I came to Softscape just over four years ago soon after I graduated from college. I started as a fairly underpaid, but also completely unproven, developer in the company's Professional Services group. Within 6 months (when I began to prove myself, as I like to think about it) I got a raise and after 6 more I got a second raise to get me to market average. Now, about four and a half years out of school, I have "Manager" in my job title and I'm looking to build out my team (that being the main reason I'm posting). In the past four years, I have traveled abroad (Bangkok twice for several weeks at a time), I have learned more about software development than I could list on a resume, I have been involved in almost every phase of a product and project life cycle, and I have gained management experience that I doubt I would get at any other company. If nothing else, I don't think I'll ever be concerned about not having enough to talk about in an interview.
When I started Softscape was a 7 year old start up with a ton of open deals and new features needing people to work on them. I can certainly understand why people felt that they were thrown in to the thick of it as soon as they joined without a ton of support (be it documentation or hand holding) because there's a bit of truth to that. The state of the company was such that it there was simply not enough time or resources to, for instance, spend a week to document old functionality when that week could be spent to develop new functionality to close a deal (that generates revenue that pays the bills). The expectation was that employees (new and old) could overcome the obstacles and figure things out for themselves and get the job done, but perhaps that expectation was not always communicated to everyone who came on board. Back then, we didn't have some luxuries that we have now like an official Documentation Manager and a Sustained Engineering team that helps the field with product issues. As a result, Softscape upper management put a premium on independent thought, the ability to figure things out, and getting things done.
Speaking of upper management, my view of the management and ownership is this: they take care of the employees that make positive contributions to the company. Whatever else they may be (and personally, I think some of the descriptions of them are somewhat exaggerated), the executives of this company are very intelligent people and will do what's in the best interest of the company. If you are intelligent, hard working, and get the job done they will reward you more than many other places and do what it takes to keep you around: it's that simple. In my view, most of the people that got fired at Softscape didn't get fired for no good reason, they got fired because they were not meeting expectations. Are those expectations high? Absolutely, but the reward for meeting them is also worthwhile.
Regarding the product, I may be biased since I spend most days working on it, but I believe it's actually very very good. It's very complex (several million lines of code) but it is very powerful. Documentation (both, user and developer) on the product is growing and many tasks that used to take days are now automated. I have always considered the product to be one of the biggest strengths of this company and one of the biggest reasons that a relatively small company such as Softscape can compete with companies many times Softscape's size.
Here's the bottom line. If you're a prospective employee and looking for a huge company that resembles Dilbert-land where you can get lost in the shuffle and struggle to stay awake through some mind numbing task for exactly 40 hours every week, this is not the place for you. If you're looking for an opportunity to gain knowledge in a vast array of fields and get experience you would get at few other companies, this is the place for you. If you're looking for a fast paced environment that will challenge you on an almost daily basis, and most importantly reward you when you succeed, this is the place for you. Many of the complaints people have made regarding this company (poor documentation and processes, for instance) are truly improving on a daily basis. And to be truthful, many problems remain, just like at every other job out there. Furthermore, it bears mentioning that everybody here is facing the same challenges, which I feel drives people closer together and makes work a lot more fun. If you're smart, hard working, and know what it takes to get the job done, the opportunity to get rewarded and grow exists at Softscape, and I'll be looking forward to speaking with you.
-Igor
See 17 more ratings for Softscape!
16 comments
Write a comment!-
Re: My Point of View posted by thehacker on November 21, 2008 04:15 PM
Interesting. Since you say that processes are improving, how does Softscape do translations these days? When I was there Softscape used just about the most bug-prone and clumsy approach imaginable: duplicating the source tree (the template language source, not the ISAPI dll's) for each language and translating *the source*. Gah.That "solution" was trumpeted as a great design choice by Rick Watkins (or whichever Watkins is/was the CTO). How does that jive with your impression of the upper management being very intelligent? (Well, maybe it does; someone can be very intelligent but an abysmal engineer.) -
Re: My Point of View posted by ib15 on November 21, 2008 04:29 PM
Unfortunately, Mr./Mrs. thehacker, I can't go into too much detail regarding exactly how any part of the application works (potential confidentiality/legal issues I don't want to find the boundaries of). Regarding translations, the way we do them now does not place any additional burden on developers with regard to code duplication or maintenance, if that is your concern. The translation process is almost completely automated and produces a good user experience without any impact on system performance or stability. Please keep in mind that an Engineering decision you don't agree with, especially considering you likely do not know the entire reasoning behind it, does not a bad process make.
However, if we do make the leap to assume the way something is done now is not the best way to do it, then I welcome everyone capable to come and work at Softscape and improve the way it works. Improving the product is one of the reasons we're looking to hire intelligent people.
-Igor -
Re: My Point of View posted by thehacker on November 21, 2008 04:47 PM
"Please keep in mind that an Engineering decision you don't agree with, especially considering you likely do not know the entire reasoning behind it, does not a bad process make"Please, enlighten us. I would love to know the logic behind the 1-source-copy-per-language approach. If it wasn't a bad process, tell us why. I'm sure you can do that without giving away any secrets.When Rick Watkins described the 1-source-copy-per-language approach in my orientation class, he was very proud of it. Because of that quick-and-dirty hack, he was able to make some deadline and make some sale. Great, good for him. But from then on, the rest of the company paid a big price in greatly increased dev time and bugs for translated apps.It can be fine, depending on the situation, to cut corners like Rick did in the short term. Hack it together for a demo if you have to, but refactor for the release. That's pretty elementary software engineering.You very well may enjoy working at Softscape. I'm glad for you if that's the case. But there's a big world out there, and most of the design approaches used by Softscape when I worked there are, without controversy, considered antipatterns.Where I work, we wouldn't hire someone who wrote things the Softscape way. We actually fired someone who did. -
Re: My Point of View posted on November 21, 2008 05:20 PM
Igor:
You sound like a very reasonable person. How do you explain the Naked Truth episode and the associated well ...creepiness. How do folks inside the company relate to those who have created such an embarrassing situation? -
Re: My Point of View posted by ib15 on November 21, 2008 05:34 PM
You're right, hacking together features is poor Software Engineering, I don't think anyone would disagree with you. And I was not there in your orientation class, so I cannot comment about who bragged about what, but I'd be lying if I said that nothing I've done at Softscape has been the quick way as opposed to the best way (often times at our customers' requests!). As you put it, I'm glad for you if you work in a company where you can always take the time to find the best solution to every problem and then refactor it as needed, but working in a small-ish aggressive company like Softscape that has to make sales and meet deadlines always presents challenges, and (especially in the early stages) a company cannot always dedicate the time and resources necessary to do everything in the absolute best way (and even if they did, someone would still find some fault in it).
Do I think from an Engineering perspective that every feature we have is implemented in the best possible way? No, of course not, there's always room for improvement and refactoring. And in fact over the last few years, we have done just that. I won't be discussing specific features, but in general I can tell you that right now there is a strong focus at Softscape on good fundamental design and code review. Is there ever a time when we have to fix or develop something without the most thought out design? Sure, but that's what happens when you work in a dynamic environment like Softscape.
-Igor -
Re: My Point of View posted by ib15 on November 21, 2008 05:51 PM
someone wrote:Igor:
You sound like a very reasonable person. How do you explain the Naked Truth episode and the associated well ...creepiness. How do folks inside the company relate to those who have created such an embarrassing situation?
Good question. Unfortunately, and I hate how this sounds, I can't discuss any pending litigation. I guess, in general, no one likes to hear anything negative about something into which they put so much time and energy, be it true or false. The way I look at that stuff in general is that the world of corporate competition is pretty messy, and I bet you can find unsettling information on just about any company. I'm not saying that makes it OK to do anything illegal, just that it's easy to get caught up in a specific he said/she said episode. I suppose the way I look at it as of right now, is that the question of creepiness is more of a personal question rather than anything that affects the professional life at Softscape.
-Igor -
Re: My Point of View posted on November 21, 2008 06:42 PM
Nicely put. Good luck, I really hope they appreciate such a committed and professional employee. -
Re: My Point of View posted on November 22, 2008 01:44 PM
From my years at SS, and from my point of view, the technology was old and clumsy compared to what my peers at other companies were doing. I dont know if SS has since caught back up with the other companies but my friends laughed when I told them how we did things.
As for the Naked Truth, I think that is just simply representative of the managmeent (i.e., family) that runs SS. Let the rest speak for itself and if someone desires to work for a company where the managment would put out a document like the Naked Truth (as they have admitted)... caveat emptor... Let the buyer beware (gotta love the Ferengi) -
Re: My Point of View posted on November 22, 2008 02:40 PM
I've never heard of anybody named Igor at Softscape.
| scores in this rating | |
|---|---|
development process | |
| clear requirements | unrated |
| design and planning | unrated |
| quality assurance | unrated |
| automated testing | unrated |
| peer review | unrated |
| development environment | unrated |
| development hardware | unrated |
| physical workspace | unrated |
| infrastructure and support | unrated |
| issue tracking | unrated |
| source control | unrated |
| product quality | unrated |
culture | |
| cultivation of creativity | unrated |
| mitigation of risk | unrated |
| reasonable workload | unrated |
| prevention of crunch time | unrated |
| hitting deadlines | unrated |
| taking responsibility | unrated |
| development autonomy | unrated |
| keeping ego in check | unrated |
compensation | |
| salary | unrated |
| health coverage | unrated |
| paid time off | unrated |
| snacks | unrated |
| other perks | unrated |
organization | |
| advancement opportunities | unrated |
| employee retention | unrated |
| hiring process | unrated |
| quality of development management | unrated |
| quality of upper management | unrated |
| quality of developers | unrated |
| team-to-team communication | unrated |
| internal team communication | unrated |
| management-developer communication | unrated |
general | |
| location | unrated |
| nearby food | unrated |
| business model | unrated |
| cool technology | unrated |
| vision and strategy | unrated |
| warm fuzzy feeling | unrated |
| overall |
![]() ![]()
|
preferences | |
| casual dress code | unrated |
| use of Free Software | unrated |
| development of Free Software | unrated |
| use of GNU/Linux | unrated |
| use of Mac OS | unrated |
| use of Solaris | unrated |
| use of Windows | unrated |
| use of BSD | unrated |
| use of Python | unrated |
| use of Perl | unrated |
| use of Ruby | unrated |
| use of Lisp | unrated |
| use of Java | unrated |
| use of C# | unrated |
| use of Objective-C | unrated |
| use of C | unrated |
| use of C++ | unrated |
| use of PHP | unrated |
| use of ASP | unrated |
| use of legacy languages | unrated |
