Maybe it is my lack of comprehension with the spoken words in general, and my lack of ease with the native language spoken at my company especially, but I wanted to ask, is it normal to be given or explained software tasks verbally.
Most of the time, I am given tasks where someone explains to me verbally what needs to be done. The information is usually pretty specific, like:
From which process you need to expose what variables and from what task you can then access these variables but you have to be careful about conditions x, y and z. And then when you have done this, this information can be passed on wards to the GUI using this pointer from there and then you cast it back and from the context of the original task you can call ... and on and on it goes.
And as I hear all of this trying to hold all the bits in my head, I usually end up missing some important bits inevitably (like those two variables that were mentioned by the task-giver, I thought he has introduced them in the code already, while in fact, I was supposed to add them for him). And so instead of landing in India, we end up on Hispaniola.
Next thing I hear as feedback, is,
Maybe this [work/task] is too difficult for you.
Maybe this is way above your head.
(Just to be clear, it is not a question of comprehension. I often interrupt and repeat what the task assignee has said to me, in my own words back to him, with the interjection that "I hope I understood that correctly then.", and he says, yes, that is what/how he wants it to be done. If I had the opportunity I would jot down some notes, but still, is this the state-of-the-art industry practice for assigning tasks?)
Why do we have redmine then for example, if nobody ever bothers to use it? (Even if I come back to my seat and write the issue myself (as well as I can recall), no one bothers to look into it. No time. Too busy. Too much bla bla on redmine, they say.)
Or maybe this is totally normal behavior at other companies also, that tasks are explained like little verbal puzzles with the half the things done by someone else and the missing bits need to be filled in by me, using those verbal clues provided?
Also how healthy [and common] is it really to have a codebase where everyone has their fingers in every module? I have had experience working at other places before, where I was the sole owner of a module. We agreed on some interface which the other developers would expect from me. We had static code checkers for quality control. We had code reviews [for quality control]. But what happened within that module was my choice. While the architect/integrator took care of overall balance. Was that an exception?
I have been tolerating the situation for a while now, but I think a parting of ways is inevitable.