Skip to main content

Why work at Microsoft

I spent a total of 5 years at Microsoft.  2 years as a contractor and 3 years as a full time Engineering Lead.  My time at Microsoft had its ups and downs but overall it was a very valuable experience.  I am tough on Microsoft, but that’s primarily because I think they can do a lot better.  I want to devote a few paragraphs to why one would actually work at Microsoft, because even with all its flaws Microsoft can contribute a lot to someone’s growth.

First thing to remember – Microsoft is a very engineering driven company.  It is the best place to learn how to be a great developer, tester or program manager.  Most of the groups at Microsoft know exactly how those roles play together and how to train and execute in those disciplines.  Microsoft has had some issues delivering breakthrough products lately, but it’s rarely an engineering issue.  Windows 7, Windows Phone 7, Xbox, Office, Windows Servers and Visual Studio are stable, extensible, responsive and are a pleasure to use.  In the interest of full disclosure I do use an iPhone and a Macbook Pro, but it’s mostly a hardware issue.

When you join Microsoft as an engineer they will train you how to write secure code, how to test it, how to grow in your role and invest in yourself.

Being at Microsoft as an engineering manager or a lead is also a great experience.  Microsoft will invest into training you how to hire and terminate, how to deal with various personalities and how to drive your team to excel.

The time I did spend at Microsoft I shipped products, did bug triage and gained intuition about how to manage a release.

There are plenty of reasons not to be at Microsoft and that’s why I left 5  years ago to join DocuSign, however that’s a whole different blog post.  I do consider my time on the Windows Team as a Masters in Software Engineering (as opposed to Masters in Computer Science).  The curriculum consists of taking classes, doing a lot of homework, working hard, coming into the lab on the weekends, and passing your finals by shipping software.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

SDET / QA Engineer Interview Checklist

After interviewing and hiring hundreds of engineers over the past 12+  years I have come up with a few checklists.  I wanted to share one of those with you so you could conduct comprehensive interviews of QA Engineers for your team.

I use this checklist when I review incoming resumes and during the interview.  It keeps me from missing areas that ensure a good team and technology fit.  I hope you make good use of them.  If you think there are good questions or topics that I have missed - get in touch with me!


SDE/T or QA Engineer interview checklist from Mike Borozdin
If you like this checklist you might want to check out these posts:
Emotional Intelligence in Software Teams  and Good-bye manual tester, hello crowdsourcing!

Code versus Configuration

At Ethos we are building a distributed mortgage origination system and in mortgage there is a lot of
different user types with processes that vary depending on geography.  One of our ongoing discussions is about how much of the logic resides in code vs. being in a workflow system or configuration.  After researching this topic for a bit, I have arrived at a conclusion that the logic should live outside of code very infrequently, which might come as a surprise to a lot of enterprise software engineers.

Costs of configuration files and workflow engines First thing that I assume is true is that having any logic outside of the code has costs associated with it.  Debugging highly configurable system involves not only getting the appropriate branch from source control, you also need to make sure that the right configuration values or the database.  In most cases this is harder for programmers to deal with.  In many FinTech companies where the production data is not made readily accessible…

Should this be a microservice?

After having developed several distributed systems and been a part of dozens of architectural discussions I decided to put together a way to frame the microservices debate. Microservices have been fashionable for some time. A lot of it stemmed from the fact that big and successful cloud companies are using microservices.  It seems reasonable that to create a “serious system” one must be using serious tools and architecture, today it’s microservices.  No engineer wants to be called out for creating a solution that “doesn’t scale.”

The definition for a microservice varies, but overall it tends to be a piece of your system that can run somewhat independently (unless of course it depends on other microservices) and has a REST or queue processing interface.  Overall code encapsulation and separation of concerns have all been around for a long period of time.  Current evolution with containers, fast networks and REST API allows people to easily integrate pieces of their system using web se…