The reason console game companies are being like this now more than ever is because they can and they think they have to. They are following the model of other software development. Console games used to be the paragon of software stability.. if you crash they won't buy was the mantra.. now MS has joined the fray and let me tell you.. they know how to win by shipping first and shoddy.
So to compete other companies had to try something. They looked at other software industries (Patch # what!!?!?) and they did what they thought they had to. Console games are only a small wedge of a much bigger problem.. consumers have learned to accept crap from software because they've been told they have to.. In my opinion it makes the whole industry look bad.. (well it does make software developers look like dark magicians working in the arcane and unpredictable arts.. so I guess there's some mystique value:)
That day will end though, I think. Unless the industry can find some other great paradigm shift that will baffle consumers and convince them "It's all new and therefore should be buggy".. Otherwise people will start shopping more and more on quality. The software industry just has to mature some more is all. Companies are already getting rocked by this.. slowly but surely..
And he's not a shill for Sun by any means. More a shill for Jini and RMI maybe.. but not Sun. You may not consider it a standard in the classic sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some jabs at J2EE in there and Sun's recent fascination with XML. That may be where the bee got in his bonnet from... not from Sun's lack of standardization of Java.
Jim's been a long time maverick.. not all that favored inside Sun, he's really opinionated too. But in general he thinks a lot before he talks.. no matter what he says about just letting it fly..
Check out Ken Arnold's weblog on there too. They've worked together a lot and Ken is a little more direct with his jabs:)
It seems to me rather obvious. Why don't we just setup a system for companies to have some kind of agreed, public, well known liability rules? Then if company A decides to release a product with level 1 reliability and company B releases with level 3 or no reliability then so be it. Who would you buy from? Depends on how much reliability you need and how much you are willing to spend.
Right now it's almost impossible to get good information on the quality of software. Heck there are even laws preventing it (like Oracles and Microsofts "no external benchmarking" BS).
How to do this right is a real problem. I would think though that one of the recognized bodies could set up some rules for the levels. (1. will not kill user, 2. will not format hard drive before use, 3. will not format the hard drive in standard use, etc..:) And the government would require software to carry a level that they promise the software will live up to.. even if it's no guarantees (the lowest level).
It just seems to me that software users need to be informed better what they can expect and then they will make the right decisions and over time their expectations/demands will increase.
If you had to prove code is solid, functional programming languages like LISP and ML would certainly make a come back. So it's not all bad.:)
Cannabilizing a certain market.. (hint not cars)
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 1
The problem I see with this.. from a marketing standpoint (technically it's truly cool)... is that it's aiming at the biker/scooter market. And they seem to want more exercise in their transport than this.
Most drivers I know have a few issues with this device:
1. I have to stand up for how long?
2. I have to ride without a heater/air conditioner?
3. How the heck do I carry groceries in it?
I think #3 will be solved fairly readily. #1 might be solved but it's a major form change and well.. #2 is a problem.
In effect, it doesn't fix most of the problems drivers have with the current solutions and doesn't seem to appeal to the bikers/scooters (who already like the current solutions).
I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to see cities make this move (especially cities designed around the idea), but I'm not holding my breath just yet.
I wish more people would answer the question..
on
Coder or Architect?
·
· Score: 1
The author is asking about whether he should transition instead of how best to transition.. I know for me it's always easier to figure out how than is it right for me.
I've known more than a few programmers that have led themselves to a job hell by going for the "next" step in their career. People that should never have been managers or architects being pushed up.
So I guess my suggestion is, take care, focus on what it is you really want to do, don't just jump to the next "level" as decided by someone else.
DescSuit
A few warnings from someone who's been there..
on
Coder or Architect?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
About a year ago I went through this transition at a startup (FYI, that startup is no longer there) Here's a few things to look out for:
1. Many people inside a company may have different ideas of what an architect does. If you describe yourself as one, there can be all kinds of misperceptions to deal with.
2. In many companies, architects are considered a luxury item, so when times are tough they are rarely hired.
3. You will get age resistance, since most architects are older than you.
4. The definition of architect is very fuzzy. At some companies like Sun Microsystems, Architects have Phds and 10 years experience on average. They don't really lead a group, but primarily do specifications and handle
meetings (and occasional coding to stay fresh). At a startup, they are you and me. They could be asked to do almost anything from test planning to project management in addition to specifications and the like. Depending on where the managers/officers of the company come from they will have a different expectation.
BTW, don't take too much guff from people about being arrogant. I've led 40 somethings before too.. it's not that we are better.. just different. In my experience the 20 year guys don't want to deal with leading and are on their fourth or fifth primary language so I don't expect them to remember the details like I do on my 2nd.
Oh another side note, don't code on the project you are architecting if you can avoid it. Writing minor stuff or interfaces are ok, but not serious long term coding. I know a lot of people are telling you otherwise.. but it can often lead to odd, ugly conflicts of interest and time. What's easier to code is often not the right answer architecturally and with deadlines as they are.. well you see the problem.
It seems to me that there's a point being lost here, the industry is changing. That's not to say that quirky engineers are not often useful, capable and creative people. It's just that the industry is needing less and less creative, truly technically focused people. As the computer industry solidifies, more and more positions are really just technician jobs and they don't require guru like skills, they require reliability and predictability.
What does that mean to us the quirky? We have to start moving on to more cutting edge less established fields, more research and development type work. The web field (as we know it now) and the e-commerce field are getting too corporate, time to find the next revolution.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason console game companies are being like this now more than ever is because they can and they think they have to. They are following the model of other software development. Console games used to be the paragon of software stability.. if you crash they won't buy was the mantra.. now MS has joined the fray and let me tell you.. they know how to win by shipping first and shoddy.
:)
So to compete other companies had to try something. They looked at other software industries (Patch # what!!?!?) and they did what they thought they had to. Console games are only a small wedge of a much bigger problem.. consumers have learned to accept crap from software because they've been told they have to.. In my opinion it makes the whole industry look bad.. (well it does make software developers look like dark magicians working in the arcane and unpredictable arts.. so I guess there's some mystique value
That day will end though, I think. Unless the industry can find some other great paradigm shift that will baffle consumers and convince them "It's all new and therefore should be buggy".. Otherwise people will start shopping more and more on quality. The software industry just has to mature some more is all. Companies are already getting rocked by this.. slowly but surely..
DescSuit
And he's not a shill for Sun by any means. More a shill for Jini and RMI maybe.. but not Sun. You may not consider it a standard in the classic sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's some jabs at J2EE in there and Sun's recent fascination with XML. That may be where the bee got in his bonnet from... not from Sun's lack of standardization of Java.
:)
Jim's been a long time maverick.. not all that favored inside Sun, he's really opinionated too. But in general he thinks a lot before he talks.. no matter what he says about just letting it fly..
Check out Ken Arnold's weblog on there too. They've worked together a lot and Ken is a little more direct with his jabs
Right now it's almost impossible to get good information on the quality of software. Heck there are even laws preventing it (like Oracles and Microsofts "no external benchmarking" BS).
How to do this right is a real problem. I would think though that one of the recognized bodies could set up some rules for the levels. (1. will not kill user, 2. will not format hard drive before use, 3. will not format the hard drive in standard use, etc..:) And the government would require software to carry a level that they promise the software will live up to.. even if it's no guarantees (the lowest level).
It just seems to me that software users need to be informed better what they can expect and then they will make the right decisions and over time their expectations/demands will increase.
DescSuit
If you had to prove code is solid, functional programming languages like LISP and ML would certainly make a come back. So it's not all bad. :)
The problem I see with this.. from a marketing standpoint (technically it's truly cool)... is that it's aiming at the biker/scooter market. And they seem to want more exercise in their transport than this.
Most drivers I know have a few issues with this device:
1. I have to stand up for how long?
2. I have to ride without a heater/air conditioner?
3. How the heck do I carry groceries in it?
I think #3 will be solved fairly readily. #1 might be solved but it's a major form change and well.. #2 is a problem.
In effect, it doesn't fix most of the problems drivers have with the current solutions and doesn't seem to appeal to the bikers/scooters (who already like the current solutions).
I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to see cities make this move (especially cities designed around the idea), but I'm not holding my breath just yet.
The author is asking about whether he should transition instead of how best to transition.. I know for me it's always easier to figure out how than is it right for me.
I've known more than a few programmers that have led themselves to a job hell by going for the "next" step in their career. People that should never have been managers or architects being pushed up.
So I guess my suggestion is, take care, focus on what it is you really want to do, don't just jump to the next "level" as decided by someone else.
DescSuit
About a year ago I went through this transition at a startup (FYI, that startup is no longer there) Here's a few things to look out for:
1. Many people inside a company may have different ideas of what an architect does. If you describe yourself as one, there can be all kinds of misperceptions to deal with.
2. In many companies, architects are considered a luxury item, so when times are tough they are rarely hired.
3. You will get age resistance, since most architects are older than you.
4. The definition of architect is very fuzzy. At some companies like Sun Microsystems, Architects have Phds and 10 years experience on average. They don't really lead a group, but primarily do specifications and handle
meetings (and occasional coding to stay fresh). At a startup, they are you and me. They could be asked to do almost anything from test planning to project management in addition to specifications and the like. Depending on where the managers/officers of the company come from they will have a different expectation.
BTW, don't take too much guff from people about being arrogant. I've led 40 somethings before too.. it's not that we are better.. just different. In my experience the 20 year guys don't want to deal with leading and are on their fourth or fifth primary language so I don't expect them to remember the details like I do on my 2nd.
Oh another side note, don't code on the project you are architecting if you can avoid it. Writing minor stuff or interfaces are ok, but not serious long term coding. I know a lot of people are telling you otherwise.. but it can often lead to odd, ugly conflicts of interest and time. What's easier to code is often not the right answer architecturally and with deadlines as they are.. well you see the problem.
DescSuit
It seems to me that there's a point being lost here, the industry is changing. That's not to say that quirky engineers are not often useful, capable and creative people. It's just that the industry is needing less and less creative, truly technically focused people. As the computer industry solidifies, more and more positions are really just technician jobs and they don't require guru like skills, they require reliability and predictability.
What does that mean to us the quirky? We have to start moving on to more cutting edge less established fields, more research and development type work. The web field (as we know it now) and the e-commerce field are getting too corporate, time to find the next revolution.
DescSuit