Is being the second author always good? I work in an institute where I am more concerned with Development of systems and solutions rather than actual research, but of course the head is a professor and writing papers is an important task when it comes to productivity. 
My ordeal is that I would rather be:


  on the programming, developing side of the research, where I like to give things a try than just writing ideas and concepts


I have however been a second author on a couple of papers; one a demo/poster paper and one for a conference (in the pipeline).

I have been stressing myself because I realize that writing papers isn't my thing but the work that I do is still enjoyable and fun and I would like to continue working as much as possible

Is being a second author most of the times accounts to something similar to publishing things as a first author?
This depends strongly on the field. In some, it is a big deal, in others not so much. But it is always a good thing to be an author, wherever you appear in the list. 

If you are comfortable with it, don't worry too much. Your preferences may change, of course, in which case you may want to take more of a lead in the research and thus in the "perceived rank" of authorship. 

Of course, your institution might put more emphasis on "first" authorship and it may affect your advancement. Don't neglect that. 

In some fields we don't worry at all about that and just list names alphabetically, assuming that if they are listed, they contributed.