The Bosses Do Everything Better (or So They Think)
theodp writes "Some people, writes Dave Winer, make the mistake of thinking that if the result of someone's work is easy to use, the work itself must be easy. Like the boss — or boss's boss's boss — who asks for your code so he can show you how to implement the features he wants instead of having to bother to explain things. Give the code to him, advises Winer. If he pulls it off, even poorly, at least you'll know what he was asking for. And if he fails, well, he might be more patient about explaining what exactly he wants, and perhaps even appreciate how hard your work is. Or — more likely — you may simply never hear from him again. Win-win-win. So, how do you handle an anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better boss?"
Programmers themselves really often make the mistake of thinking that everyone else's job is simple and easy and doesn't require much knowledge, or that companies should be spending more resources on programmers and IT than other departments. Best example is sales and marketing people. Programmers think it is completely unnecessary, but quite frankly, they would perform really poorly trying to do that kind of work. And I say this is a programmer-since-I-was-a-kid, but only picked up some sales and marketing skills after becoming an adult (I run my own business).
I think I also know why programmers suck at sales and marketing people. Programmers, and geeks, quite often lack the social skills and knowledge of human psychology to succeed in it. I know I used to, and many slashdotters say they'd rather be left alone to work on code. Frankly, these are important skills. Programmers have the ability to read code, error messages and everything else that is presented to them as facts and clearly. They have the mindset of a computer, "do x, get y". What they lack is reading people and other things when it isn't presented to them in a straight, clear form. Programmers fail to see subtle hints and expressions. They need it in clear. Maybe it's a difference in brain or something. It's also why so many people with Asperger syndrome are overly fascinated by computers. They also cannot read subtly things, they need it in clear. Code, compiler messages and computers provide that.
Which is also why I don't understand why programmers and IT usually put down other departments like sales and marketing. Maybe because they don't understand that it is actually hard work, and requires learning just like you do with programming books. Yes, some people will be good at it naturally, but majority aren't. It's the same with programmers and pretty much anything. The fact is, sales and marketing is hard work. It's especially hard to do it correctly, as it's usually the sales and marketing people that are responsible for the product gaining any users.
You can have everything right in your product but if no one knows about it and if there's no one telling you what would your product improve on the persons work or life, then your product is almost useless. This same trend can be seen with Linux and to an extend with some Google (and other geeky companies) products. Just throwing something at wall to see if it sticks doesn't work. You need to do your research, you need to interact with your customers and most importantly, you need to provide them with something that actually fixes a need they have. "But GPL is free, and leads to code liberation" frankly doesn't cut it. Most people care about their own needs, and that does nothing about them. Sales and marketing people are good at researching, reading and telling people, from the customer point of view, that what would it fix in their lives, and it is an essential skill.
> Give the code to him, advises Winer.
I recall a more general advice from the series: don't upset people serving your food.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
As a Human Resource Manager I will tell you that this whole article merely displays the anti-authority attitude that many people in the IT field have. The author self-validates his own beliefs and cognitive biases by not only ignoring and fighting against his superiors, but by setting them up to fail. If the code (referred to in the article) were well written and commented, then the executive who took a programming course should have had no problem completing the task. Well written and structured code should be easy to modify and improve.
I personally always find resistance from IT people when trying to get them to do something. Usually they are just too lazy and stubborn to complete tasks in a time efficient manner. When I remotely monitor their computer screens, for example, I often see 1 or 2 minutes at a time when code is not being typed into the terminal. There is no excuse for such laziness. And many of them want to be paid for "over-time" when they don't complete their tasks in a time-efficient manner. But I tell you, if they don't bother to finish their tasks in the scheduled time then they shouldn't expect to get free money by working over time.
Many programmers in fact are socialists. I've noticed that many of them are against businesses and capitalism, as can be seen by their anti-SOPA, and pro-copyright-theft ideologies. If programmers would be smart enough then they wouldn't be programmers, they would be a boss like me telling them what to do. It's obvious that the people complaining about their superiors are just jealous.
I guess since this is Slashdot I can expect to be moderated down because people just can't handle the truth.
You can have everything right in your product but if no one knows about it and if there's no one telling you what would your product improve on the persons work or life, then your product is almost useless. This same trend can be seen with Linux and to an extend with some Google (and other geeky companies) products
Chrome has issue 44106, which despite countless requests for an implementation, was labeled "Won't Fix".
One developer says:
"Commenting on this bug has absolutely no effect at all on the likelihood that we are going to reconsider."
Then goes further to say:
"We made the decision not to make this configurable long, long ago, even before we WontFixed this bug in comment 59 (over a year ago itself). Accordingly the bug is closed because that reflects not only our current stance but the position we've had for a very long time."
So thus "bug" sounds like a feature! Now, talk of listening to customers.
Be like a swan paddling upstream. Graceful on the surface, but working like crazy underneath. I don't buy into the idea of embarrassing your boss by making him look stupid. Who is that going to help? Certainly not the person who made him look a fool. When it comes to promotion/pay raise time, who is going to get the bacon? The complainer who makes his superiority known, or the guy who shuts up and gets the job done without fuss?
You don't say....
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Chrome was designed a certain way, if you don't like the design, then don't use it. What next, you are going to file bug reports with Ford because you want only 2 wheels on your car and four is a bug?
Why can't I file a bug with MS for making windows have the close button on the top right where I don't want it and no way to change it?
A bug is something where something does not work as intended.
When something is working as intended but you want it to work a different way, that is called a feature request. And yours was turned down. Google, MS and nobody else owes it to you to implement YOUR feature requests in THEIR product. If you want to dictate how a program should be designed, pay its development.
But of course that won't wash with your sort, everyone should do everything exactly as you want it for no pay.
Easy bet that you yourself have never done anything for anyone else ever in your entire life.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
GP is satire. Not even a troll.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
o <-- joke here
.
.
o <-- you here
They assume anything they don't know how to do must be easy. Programmers are just as vulnerable to it, perhaps even more so. Many programmers suffer what what I call Smartest Motherfucker in the Universe Syndrome. They seem to feel that they are way smarter then everyone else, way better at what they do, and as such could do anything better.
You can see it all the time on Slashdot when you see people whine about why a company won't just magically make everything secure or bug free. These people falsely assume it is easy to do and that if they were the ones in charge they could do it easily. They either falsely believe their own code to be completely bug free or more often believe that what they do is really hard, but what the other guy does is easy.
It just seems to be a human condition for many people. When someone else is responsible, they figure it is easy to do and cannot understand why that person won't just do it.
So that bosses have it too is unsurprising, but let's not pretend like it is just a management problem. Heck, you can see the problem manifested in the attitudes many people have towards management. They think it is easy and/or useless and they could do it better. Actually being a good manager is quite difficult and hence there are plenty of bad ones, particularly since it is a different skill from being a good worker. You can promote a good worker in to management and find them a bad manager because it is a different skill, one they aren't good at.
Hush. Use market discrimination, as they teach in microeconomics. If your market is filled with people who might have trouble locating the ON switch to their machines, use lots of pastels in your program, and spend half your time polishing the UI (yes, you need a GUI, in this instance, it's not optional). If your market is filled with people who know how to program, focus on the background stuff, and use a CLI (unless you like GUIs, at which point, go with that).
And programmers do appear lazy to people of other fields -> more than half your programming career is spent in your head, trying to solve a problem or trying to break your program. Why? Because using pencils and paper is too slow. There isn't a programmer alive whose brain (outside of a terrible accident) isn't the equivalent of the latest generation CPU overclocked to dangerous levels. Other people just see you sitting in your chair, lightly pampered, with a comfortable salary and / or stock options (back in the day), speaking in gibberish and getting awfully excited about things that 1.) they don't understand, 2.) they do not care about, and 3.) are not POPULAR. Popular amongst programmers, yes, but popular amongst the populace, I think not (unless you've styled yourself as a h@x0r). As a programmer, you don't even get real vacations; it's almost impossible to leave your work at work -> it's all in your head, and your mind will keep trying to solve that one annoying problem even on a beach filled with a plethora of naked women and copious amounts of alcohol / weed / whatever. Kind of like Watchmen, with Dr. Manhattan -> you can be physically there with your girlfriend, but mentally in another universe. Most of the time without trying (not because you're bored, but because you're watching a movie and she has her back to you; your brain just schedule stuff into every free time slot it can acquire).
I'm going to use a religious comparison here, and say that people want from programmers the same thing they want from their gods -> they want a show. If the Almighty were to take a stroll amongst the people today, they'd be peppering him with requests for parlor tricks (make water into wine, walk on water, break out the 12 plagues or whatever); the same currently applies to programmers -> the people want a GUI that sings and dances, that has little bouncing icons and transition effects, dancing babies and farting pigs; they do not care about anything else. Bread and circuses.
I am John Hurt.
Your boss gets to define what 'better' is, so it's a battle you can never win.
Last project I had, I wrote 80% of my teams code, was involved in all aspects of the design and the end product was a big success as a result. What do you imagine would happen for the next version?
a) I am empowered.
b) I am dis-empowered.
Yep, b), excluded from design meetings, told my input isn't wanted, and that I was exaggerating my contribution. I decided the best thing to do at that point was to leave. I could see some of the choices they'd made were train wrecks. Although I offered them alternatives that would deliver the same feature in a way that wouldn't break the product, they weren't even discussed. The meeting had already taken place, the people 'in-the-know' had made their choices and entrenched their positions.
What did I know, only all the algorithms they would break by their bad choices. If only the people making the decisions had been the type than can understand algos, I, or one of the other programmers could explain it to them, but they weren't and we couldn't.
I hear I am to blame for the current mess in the project. Bosses are always right, and just re-write history if needed.
'better' is defined by you boss right up until his project is cancelled.
Not really.
Sales/marketing is about finding out what a customer WANTS ... and then convincing the customer that he (she) NEEDS your product to be able to get whatever they want.
http://www.theaxeeffect.com/
You've probably seen the ads if you're in the USofA.
More likely they are trying to sell the product based upon the product's capabilities.
Not by claiming that it will provide (for example) the ability to "radiate rockstar vibes all day long".
Not really. But it gets back to the "rockstar vibes" and the radiating of such for the duration of a day. The programmer is selling a product that he (she) has a concrete understanding of. Does the customer NEED the features in the program?
Meanwhile, the salesguy is selling the image of being a rockstar in industry X and how such a rockstar would need this program to achieve that. Whether it will actually accomplish anything like that or not.
Again, that is easy to do for the programmer.
But that is not how marketing/sales works. See the above Axe example.
Which is why the golf course is so often featured in the sales/marketing plan.
Read TFA, this is a company that had just been bought out by Symantec. Quote: "I had already been sidelined ... it was a constant struggle for me to get the features I wanted in the product from a devteam I built. And a codebase I wrote, but no longer managed." - nobody is going to blame you in this situation.
The way I see it, the human race evolved with certain abilities - but not everyone has all those abilities and inclinations to equal degrees. Thus, we have the familiar broad categories of extrovert and introvert, for instance. Everyone has seen extreme cases. Like the extrovert who can't be happy unless surrounded by people, talking, winding each other up, having relationships... always something happening. Or the introvert who hates social occasions because it's so hard to get a word in edgeways, and even then the wrong words somehow seem to pop out of your mouth so your clever pick-up line comes out as an offensive slur, or your clever joke falls flat because the timing is off. Much easier and better to stay alone reading, coding, watching moves, and maybe drop someone an email from time to time.
Guess what? Sales and marketing people tend to be extroverts, and programmers tend to be introverts. It's not a perfect correlation, of course - there are outstanding exceptions, and some perfectly bloody people seem to be good-looking, sociable, popular, good at sports, clever, and able to accomplish huge amounts working either alone or in a team. But it seems to me that sales and marketing are merely extensions of a natural human ability that most of us have to varying degrees: the ability to persuade, to manipulate people, to make oneself liked. Most really good salespeople know the important rule that the first thing you must sell is yourself; once clients like you, they want to help you and do what you suggest, and half the battle is won. (Incidentally, politicians tend to be consummate salespeople, which is why so few of them are introverts - and those few who are don't usually get very far).
Meanwhile, a lot of introverts end up studying and working a lot - because they don't have the urge to be partying and socialising - and become experts in relatively solitary subjects such as science, math, and programming. In the process, they learn the central importance of intellectual integrity - in other words, respect for objective truth. To an engineer building a ship or a bridge, or a programmer developing a suite of code, the facts are mostly clear, solid, and not up for debate. This is the core running gag in Dilbert: the engineers share a vast body of scientific facts and figures, which is their common heritage. In contrast, the PHB is a quintessential salesperson/manipulator. To him, it's hardly important if something is true or false; all he cares about is whether it will get him what he wants.
Our future - if we have one - depends on developing our ability to think scientifically. That means logically, honestly, objectively, and with intellectual integrity. Everything you think you know should be open for discussion, and when someone else demonstrates that one of your opinions is wrong, you should be pleased because now you know more and you have shed a false belief. Unfortunately, clear honest objective thinking is as alien to human nature as breathing air is to the average fish. Long ago, as we know, some primitive fish scrambled out of the water and gradually gained the ability to breathe air and stay on land for longer and longer periods - and from them sprang the whole immense diversity of air-breathing life we see around us today. But even air-breathing land-living mammals still enjoy a refreshing swim (providing there aren't any man-eating sharks around). Just so, even when people have learned to think regularly, clearly, and honestly, that doesn't mean they will lose their emotions and the ability to "groom" one another and enjoy socializing. But it does mean we'll get our priorities right, and decide important issues by scientific thinking, not by crocodile-brain manipulation of other people's emotions.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Assuming you're dealing with a non-programmer boss or board member, I'd be more worried about them shipping the code-base off to someone in India in an effort to save face (never-mind the fact that it's the companies latest flagship product, and the competition will have a copy of it before sunset). The board-member could just jump ship, and take the code with him, to start a new company (thanks for the lift, guys). Not like that doesn't happen all the time.
Letting your non-programmer boss / board member have unrestricted access to the code should rank up there with leaving them alone on a computer that has access to the financial's database. I'm not saying they won't twist your arm to get what they want, I'm just saying it does not bode well for the company.
I am John Hurt.
I think Winer's story extends out to a myriad of professions (mainly technical ones, but plenty of others). If an observer doesn't understand the work you do, they think it can't be too hard. Most folks overestimate their own abilities. I run a small IT company - we've got a few employees of varying skill sets but all pretty good at solving network issues. But I still regularly see clients complain about how long a task takes, or how a five-minute fix couldn't have been that hard. Car repairmen still get bitched at by people about a $200 bill to replace a tiny part.
There are good programmers, there are great programmers, and there are assuredly mediocre programmers. But that's what they do - and they are guaranteed to know more about it than virtually any layperson. Just because your car runs does not mean you know how to build a car. If your lawyer gets you off the hook for a crime you didn't commit, does that mean you could be a lawyer?
It takes very little skill to stock shelves in a grocery store. But a person who is doing that for a living definitely is better at that task than we are. More people need to understand this basic fact.
Of course, then people would be convinced that they were better at understanding facts.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
This solution works for me too. Hand the code over. If it's clear you know what you're doing and have covered all the angles, I'll leave you alone. But even if you do know what you're doing it often helps to get perspective from someone who isn't so close to the work. And sometimes the boss has seen a lot of stuff you haven't and can open up new approaches for the experienced coder, too, because most people only learn what they have to know to get the job done and move on, so it's possible the boss has seen things that have been outside your critical path.
However, there are also a great many coders out there who honestly don't know their ass from their elbows and program by rote. This phenomenon has grown exponentially since the tech industry decided to outsource all work to India and China and insource H1-B's from India and China. So having a boss closely manage code development is often the only thing standing between endless spec minutiae and getting something to market.
Your mileage may vary.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Challenge the fat fuck to a game of squash.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Well, so for me - and this is an SME - I employed people when I found myself stretched. "I can delegate", I said. I delegated. Now there are ten people doing what I used to do on my own. The company has grown, as it was the skills supply that was at shortage, not the demand.
Most of those who have been employed were graduates trained by me, or by others in the team. Not all - certain aspects of the job grew beyond my expertise. Those aspects, I would never consider myself to be better than the experts that are hired. I know my limits.
But maybe 80% of the workflow I can do better, faster, if I had the time. The point is that I value my team completely - they do their best, and they know that I know that. When one of them gets out of their depth in an area of my expertise (software development), I show them a few solutions. They go away - hopefully more skilled. Doing the work for them completely misses the point. They are hired in order to take the work from me. Sometimes they think that I am way too conservative. I am, sometimes, conservative.
It's not because I am the boss, or get more money. I hired people to take on the skills that I am good in, or who can extend those skills.
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
and stuck in a cubicle smaller than a prison cell, I had a boss who always knew more than anyone else in the room about whatever topic was being discussed. And he was an expert on all things operatic. And classical music, and art, and mountain biking, and skiing, and etc. This guy knew all there was to know about every worthwhile human endeavor and was an expert at every sport imaginable. Let's not forget that he was also a gourmet cook and an oeneologist!
He was a short little guy, with a big belly and a bacchanalian beard- a jolly looking elf! He had a couple personal habits that drove others around him nuts. First there was the snorting. All day, every day at 30 second intervals he would snort like he was getting ready to hock up a big loogie, then swallow. Then there was his flatulence. Each and every time that clown came into my cubicle to point out where I had made some spelling error on a data sheet or application note he had to fart. I quickly learned to subconsciously keep track of his location by the sound of his snorting so that when I detected he was heading in my direction I would stand up in the narrow entrance to my cubicle and prevent his entering.
The wine crap used to bug me more than anything else. I recall a few occasions when my coworkers and I would go out for a pint after work and end up having dinner at some grubby place. We'd order our burgers for $5 each and this ass-hat would insist on ordering a bottle of wine to "match the food and the spirit of the occasion". Food bill for 5: $30 or 40. One bottle of wine: $90.
We had department meetings on Monday mornings. It quickly became apparent to all who attended these meetings that anything brought up in a meeting would ultimately be done his way because it was always better to do things that way. After a while people stopped saying anything in the meetings. The rest of the department would go out to lunch on Mondays (making sure he was left out of the loop) and hold the real department meeting where things were decided without him. We used to toss around ideas about what to do to get rid of him and someone eventually came up with an idea to get him promoted (out of the department).
We spent the next 6 months doing everything we could to make him look great to his boss. In the end he was promoted to a position as an "individual contributor".
Right about that time I took a much better job at Fujitsu for about 50% more pay.
We deal with exactly this type of boss where I work. He often flies into a rage when we update him on progress on the website. He seems to think that everything we do can be done in a few days no matter how complicated or how many times he changes his mind on something. It got to the point where the webmaster/programmer started saying "Show me how. I'm willing to learn." The boss didn't have an answer for that and now the webmaster doesn't get invited to meetings on the website anymore.
--Erik
And then you see bugs like "It doesn't work" or "I get an error", without even the faintest clue included as to what doesn't work, what were they trying to do, how to reproduce whatever unspecified error was popped up at them, and so on. And then it turns out that -- I kid you not, true case -- the user had read some blog about hackers and installed some firewall on her workstation, effectively forbidding the client program from talking to the server.
Or then there was the case of my friend who wrote a database application for some small company which shall remain unnamed to protect the idio... err... innocent. He gets a call to the effect of "this crap stopped working completely", goes there, checks the ini files, then finally has the insight to look for the database tablespace files. Missing. He asks those guys. Their answer: "Oh, that huge file? We deleted it 'cause it was taking up all the space on the machine."
Or in the spirit of TFA, the boss who thinks he knows everything better than you anyway. So a long time ago, in a galaxy far away... err.. just a long time ago, I make a program for some guys, and let's just say that one part involved uncompressing some data using a sliding buffer. At the start, the buffer was initialized with all zeroes, and the algorithm actually depended on that. So at some point I get a phone call passed to me from their PHB, who's pretty much foaming at the mouth about how the crap just stopped working, and he's going to sue us for millions of dollars, and so on. Turned out he decided to look through the sources (which he had received as per the contract) and "optimize" it himself by removing that buffer initialization. And that was C, not Java, so no zeroing happening automatically either. When the program promptly started producing crap, instead of coming to the idea that maybe his changes made it stop working, he decided that obviously the program had been defective all along. So he calls and threatens to sue.
Or then there's stuff like change requests disguised as bug reports, apparently as someone's idea of being "smart" and trying to not pay for the changes. Or the guy who, when asked why he did a certain thing in a certain way (which incidentally was very very stupid), breaks up into a whole rant about our stuff lacking documentation and how much it sucks that he has to do that by trial and error and generally poor little him and evil us for not giving him documentation... except actually there was ample documentation, including the very specific case of what he was trying to do, and he had been given it too. Or as a more extreme example of that, the PHB who it turned out, didn't read more than the first paragraph, because more than once he did the exact opposite of what told to do or not to do in the second paragraph of an email. And then it turned out he genuinely had no idea of anything that was in the rest of the text.
Etc, etc, etc.
Yes, we make bugs, yes most of us start from the assumption "what did I miss?" but a LOT of times it turns out that the user actually IS retarded. And don't get me wrong, I don't expect the user to be a Linux kernel programmer or anything. But when you hear someone ranting about how much it sucks that action X does nothing whatsoever... when he hits "Cancel" on the second page of the nicely designed GUI wizard for action X, instead of actually continuing... but it's still somehow the program's fault... well, you just have to wonder how few neurons someone can have and still not stop breathing.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Why on Earth WOUNLD'T you give your code to your boss if he/she asked for it, no matter how offensively?
It's a copy, for Pete's sake. What are you afraid of, that they'll print it out and scribble on it? (Well, mine might.)
Because even though I am sometimes the Boss, I am also in charge of code quality, integration with other units and long term support. I'm also a full-time coder so I fully believe in "more eyes on the code begets better code." Secondly, us programmers have a propensity to procrastinate and generally get hung up on the interesting bits, ignoring the boring bits. Having someone that can understand exactly what you're stuck on is always "a good thing." Lastly, there's immediate backup if Timmy gets hit by a bus. Sorry, but it does happen.
It's really difficult to get developers to open up and share code... you have the "hero" guys and you also get the "afraid to be embarrassed" types as well. The faster you can get those types sharing the better your code quality will be - at least that's my experience. A code review with lunch can be a fun experience to kick that off. Giving the programmers some latitude to have their own 30 minute code review sessions with minimum management is good stuff too.
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Sounds like the boss may like to code, or may find it easier to express design in implementation than words.
Hook him up with a rapid prototyping language like VB. (specifically even if you don't use VB) The point is that it takes a handful of minutes to flesh out a gui in the VB IDE. And that's probably the point he's trying to get across to you. It doesn't have to be functional, there doesn't have to be even a line of actual code behind any of the events or button clicks. Just the physical layout and control behavior may be what he's trying to get across to you.
You may also want to consider him to have the viewpoint of closer to a "real user". As a coder I can state from experience that it's easy to get tunnel vision as to "how it's supposed to work" and lose some sight of "how the user wants it to work". At the end of the day your job isn't to solve any stated problem, but to give the user what they need. Not what they want. Not what they asked for. Not what you think they need. The most valuable tool for that is watching a user interact with your code. Treat the boss's request like user feedback. You almost certainly will learn something from the experience that can be applied to improving the performance of the product.
Some of the most important changes I make to my code involve changing behavior based on watching a user deal with a problem they simply have no idea that is changeable or that any alternative exists. I've lost count of the number of conversations along the lines of "this looks like it's getting the job done but wouldn't it be easier if it xxx?" "Well ya, I suppose so.... actually that'd be great if it worked that way. You can DO that?" The boss presenting you with some ideas in gui form may work like that but in reverse, showing you some insight you never even considered. Those are gold.
(once you've become used to a complex process it no longer stands out as something that could use improvement, this applies to both coders and users, and is most quickly identified by someone with fresh insight)
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
4) The boss (barely) manages to crank out some working code. Which she/he will check through subsequent revisions of the product. Just to make sure its still there. And you'll have to maintain around it for the rest of your life.
There's a story that went around Redmond for some time: DOS/Windows sucked because there were a few snippets of code originally written by Gates that no one dared touch until after he retired.
Have gnu, will travel.
I managed to be the lucky one to acquire a boss written system. I ran grep across the 200k lines of spaghetti php code, the word function did not appear once. Needless to say he got it back rather quickly as I departed. I am sure to this day he still considers himself a master at application development.
Got Code?
I had a pilot once who demanded to know EXACTLY what was wrong with his aircraft.
So, I told him.
After that, whenever something went wrong, he'd stay in the pilot lounge until I told him it was safe to come out.
Regards;
code in assembly language. And remember the rule: NO COMMENTS. Comments are for sissies.