"So, perhaps self discipline or imposing the adherence to minimum standards is the key?"
Well said!! I think if corporate culture could modify itself just enough to think beyond next quarter, we could begin to see this type of thinking emerge much more often.
"The simple truth is that the vast majority of programmers I have known, and managed, much prefer writing new code rather than commenting, debugging and maintaining. Why? Well, its more interesting and immediately rewarding..."
I'm as guilty of this as the next nerd. I guess what separates good developers from others is when I/you DIDN'T do a good job with documentation, etc... and end up having to muck with that code a few years later. If you don't learn a lesson from that, time to hang up your hat.
"How many times do you think a manager needs to get burned by having unmaintainable code before they wise up and budget the time?"
Well, my experience leads me to believe that most often, at least in U.S. corporate culture, managers don't stick around long enough to deal with the repercussions down the road.
"Sustainability should be brought up during the review process when the code is first baselined, otherwise it should never be allowed in source control. Doing things right the first time saves time later, no matter whether its the original developer or some poor schmuck they pulled off the street. Once you put away the code for Product X to start working on Product Y for 2 years, and you come back to Product X, if your code is not maintainable even the original developer will waste weeks or months ramping back up."
Agree 100%. But again, if the manager is not holding the developers accountable for this... or if he/she forces unrealistic timetables, when does it happen? I'm not at all saying there aren't poor developers out there, you and I and the rest of the world know better. All I am saying is that it is the culture prevalent in many corporations that forces the "worry about it later" attitude.
You seem to be pointing the finger squarely at the developer. Most often that is not where the blame should reside.
I would point out that if you are on a deadline for delivery, things get cut. Its just business. Managers fully support good documentation, well planned naming conventions, well structured code, etc... Just so long as it doesn't interfere with getting the product out the door on time.
And... FWIW... I also have tons of source (both open and closed source) to maintain, modify, w/e...
Wow! Did you already have this written up waiting for an article like this to be posted? Call the White House, they need some decent speech writers over there.
A hundred years ago, people worked 100 hours a week or more in terrible conditions, with a small, crumbling house to live in and just enough food to survive, and had to run ten miles each way to work.
Yeah? So? My dad had to do that AND it was uphill BOTH WAYS!!
I would go one step further than you however. I would argue that in addition to your changes, there needs to be MANDATORY CIVICS for ALL CITIZENS. As well as REQUIRED VOTING. Part of the problem here in America is that the public at large is too disinterested in politics to care. The have their SUV, their 3 bedroom villa, and enough $ to live a fairly comfortable life.
Why care about "the other guy" and his/her problems, lets just go have a foamy latte.
"Do you want to see 15% taxes on things you buy locally?"
Yes!! But not all at once.
The problem with local economies is that they don't scale. The trick will be transferring all those people who depend on "local" economies to the "Cyber" economy.
I look forward to the day when all the Brick & Mortar is replaced with green meadows and architectural masterpieces for the common good. Maybe I'm one of those environmental nuts, but I'd love to live long enough to see the replacement of asphalt for green on a global scale become a reality.
Instead of Wal-Marts and Targets, you replace them with meadows, forests, concert halls, and art/music/social centers.
A cultural shift in western-society will be required, but I don't think its that big of a leap. ie.. we don't go "shopping" together as an activity anymore, but instead, go to a recital!
Then don't go there? I'm kinda tired of prissy lil piss-ants crying about "but what about ME and MY rights"... Bar owners have rights to determine what type of patrons they want. You have the right not to patronize that establishment.
Stop trying to control everything, you only end up pushing guys like Hitler and Stalin into power in the end.
Don't believe it? I don't really care, its just a shame that people can't yet realize that as they try to control others, they only end up forcing totalitarianism.
I buy CDs, and I go to concerts, ALOT of concerts. The problem with the whole crowd that argues "you can go buy DRM free audio content RIGHT NOW. Yes, they're called *gasp* CDs." is that they overlook that the argument is two-fold. I often don't WANT an entire CD. Sometimes I do, but not always. Why should I pay $15 for a $.30 piece of plastic that has a whole bunch of stuff I don't want. So my alternatives are...?
Exactly... DRM'd crap.
Look... If I buy a book, can I read in in my home, car, on vacation, plane, etc... LEGALLY? Can I also copy segments of the book(say a chapter) and take those papers with me to share segments and excerpts with a classroom of kids who are having reading day? Sure I can. A book, and its contents, are available to me on my terms. Why can't music?
I WANT to buy, I REALLY DO! I think there is some great content out there that I WANT to own LEGALLY...
But I'll be damned if I am going to go through all the hassle of taking my ITMS DRM crap and converting it to a stardard mp3 format so I can play it on my "other" players. Same with movies... Its TOO MUCH HASSLE...
I'll just grab the pre-decrypted, ready-to-use, no DRM, no hassle, play anywhere, play anytime torrents, ftp files, usenet d/ls, etc... (hell I can automate this with a few scripts for God's sake)..and deal with the guilty conscience of cheating an artist out of a penny...
Its not that I WANT to cheat the artist out of his/her penny, but if you strip everything away it comes down to a pretty simple economic equation:
H = Hours of MY time spent converting DRM'd crap
V = Value of my time
X = Number of content files
AEC = Artist earnings per content file
So... you end up comparing H*V*X vs. AEC*X, and in MY mind the answer is always:
H*V*X > AEC*X
You go ahead and plug in your own numbers, I have, and to me, its just not worth it. My time is money, and if you think you are going to not only charge me money to buy your content, but then turn around and charge me (indirectly) to modify your content for my purposes, you're nuckin futs!
And not to put words in your mouth, but primarirly to point out to GP, that he/she did not see those questions. This should cement in your mind the differences here.
Yeah, I read all of you telling me how a job off-shored is not a job lost. I'll give you that. I'll even buy into the idea that you "may" expand the business to offer up some new (otherwise non-existant) jobs here.
My question is a what cost? Sub-standard working conditions? Slave wages/labor? A race to the bottom indeed.
It disturbs me that THESE issues are no center-stage in the debate. An AMERCIAN company should not be able to open up an office in India, ignoring American principles and working conditions because you are suddenly off our shores. It may save the company money, and even allow for expansion of the U.S. economy in the end, but you did it at the exploitation of the Indian workers you used by not offering equivalent pay/working conditions.
"Expansion to where? Third world countries may benefit from having a pool of low-cost labor with little regulation, but that doesn't help the labor at home."
YOU, the entry-level people, have to move to Bangalore. In turn, the "top talent" of Bangalore get Visas and green cards to come to the US.
He sees everything, knows the short and long term ramifications, and is making the "best bad" decision he can. To save as many as he can, because, in the end, he knows, as we all do in the back of our heads, he can't save us all.
I'm sorry, I don't like President Bush's policies either, but I don't think the man is evil. And I don't think he is stupid.
This is MY web connection. I pay Verizon for this service. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that my ISP can force me to view their advertisments before allowing me to surf the web. Nope, sorry, won't wash with me. I am paying a "provider" to provide "access", not "content". there is a HUGE difference here. I don't want their content, so I see no reason why I should have to pay (see bandwidth utilization) for their "content".
As for "If you don't want ads then pick one that does not show ads. You also have the choice of not using cell service at all. There is nothing unsolicited here. Every party enters these agreements voluntarily.", that is a specious argument at best. There are a limited number of players in this field, and if Verizon is allowed to do this, OF COURSE, the other providers will follow suit. Its a revenue stream they cannot ignore. I'm not saying they can not offer this as an optional service, but they will need to re-work the contracts and offer discounts to customers who opt for "content-equipped" access.
I, like I am sure many others here, now depend on cell service. Simply rejecting cell service is not an option, and it shouldn't have to be. There is no argument Verizon, or any other "access" provider can make for these ads other than as a pure-profit center. In so being, they can either offer discounted "access" service along with their "content", or content free access. They can not have it both ways, and my reading of the current legislation indicates that's NOT going to wash with the public or the legislature.
Slashdot Mirror
"then 10 months later tell a friend, who then goes and buys your product."
Would this not be a click that results in a purchase?
"So, perhaps self discipline or imposing the adherence to minimum standards is the key?"
Well said!! I think if corporate culture could modify itself just enough to think beyond next quarter, we could begin to see this type of thinking emerge much more often.
"The simple truth is that the vast majority of programmers I have known, and managed, much prefer writing new code rather than commenting, debugging and maintaining. Why? Well, its more interesting and immediately rewarding..."
I'm as guilty of this as the next nerd. I guess what separates good developers from others is when I/you DIDN'T do a good job with documentation, etc... and end up having to muck with that code a few years later. If you don't learn a lesson from that, time to hang up your hat.
"How many times do you think a manager needs to get burned by having unmaintainable code before they wise up and budget the time?"
Well, my experience leads me to believe that most often, at least in U.S. corporate culture, managers don't stick around long enough to deal with the repercussions down the road.
"Sustainability should be brought up during the review process when the code is first baselined, otherwise it should never be allowed in source control. Doing things right the first time saves time later, no matter whether its the original developer or some poor schmuck they pulled off the street. Once you put away the code for Product X to start working on Product Y for 2 years, and you come back to Product X, if your code is not maintainable even the original developer will waste weeks or months ramping back up."
Agree 100%. But again, if the manager is not holding the developers accountable for this... or if he/she forces unrealistic timetables, when does it happen? I'm not at all saying there aren't poor developers out there, you and I and the rest of the world know better. All I am saying is that it is the culture prevalent in many corporations that forces the "worry about it later" attitude.
You seem to be pointing the finger squarely at the developer. Most often that is not where the blame should reside.
I would point out that if you are on a deadline for delivery, things get cut. Its just business. Managers fully support good documentation, well planned naming conventions, well structured code, etc... Just so long as it doesn't interfere with getting the product out the door on time.
And... FWIW... I also have tons of source (both open and closed source) to maintain, modify, w/e...
Wow! Did you already have this written up waiting for an article like this to be posted? Call the White House, they need some decent speech writers over there.
A hundred years ago, people worked 100 hours a week or more in terrible conditions, with a small, crumbling house to live in and just enough food to survive, and had to run ten miles each way to work.
Yeah? So? My dad had to do that AND it was uphill BOTH WAYS!!
"Windows 2000 security updates will continue until July 13, 2010, and Windows XP security updates won't cease until April 8th, 2014."
If you Don't buy Vista, who's to say M$ will be around to provide those updates?
Agreed, and mod this guy up!
I would go one step further than you however. I would argue that in addition to your changes, there needs to be MANDATORY CIVICS for ALL CITIZENS. As well as REQUIRED VOTING. Part of the problem here in America is that the public at large is too disinterested in politics to care. The have their SUV, their 3 bedroom villa, and enough $ to live a fairly comfortable life.
Why care about "the other guy" and his/her problems, lets just go have a foamy latte.
"Do you want to see 15% taxes on things you buy locally?"
Yes!! But not all at once.
The problem with local economies is that they don't scale. The trick will be transferring all those people who depend on "local" economies to the "Cyber" economy.
I look forward to the day when all the Brick & Mortar is replaced with green meadows and architectural masterpieces for the common good. Maybe I'm one of those environmental nuts, but I'd love to live long enough to see the replacement of asphalt for green on a global scale become a reality.
Instead of Wal-Marts and Targets, you replace them with meadows, forests, concert halls, and art/music/social centers.
A cultural shift in western-society will be required, but I don't think its that big of a leap. ie.. we don't go "shopping" together as an activity anymore, but instead, go to a recital!
"In the mean time, I need to figure out how to make sure I can instantly register the domain I want."
:)
Just write a quick bot to do it for you.
"used to regularly live over 100 years due to their diet and lifestyle"
Not a troll, just curious...
"800 kg gorilla "?
:)
I thought the phrase was 800 lb gorilla? That would be approximately 363 kg.
Your gorilla would weigh in at 1764 lbs.
Peter Jackson, is that you?
Then don't go there? I'm kinda tired of prissy lil piss-ants crying about "but what about ME and MY rights"... Bar owners have rights to determine what type of patrons they want. You have the right not to patronize that establishment.
Stop trying to control everything, you only end up pushing guys like Hitler and Stalin into power in the end.
Don't believe it? I don't really care, its just a shame that people can't yet realize that as they try to control others, they only end up forcing totalitarianism.
I buy CDs, and I go to concerts, ALOT of concerts. The problem with the whole crowd that argues "you can go buy DRM free audio content RIGHT NOW. Yes, they're called *gasp* CDs." is that they overlook that the argument is two-fold. I often don't WANT an entire CD. Sometimes I do, but not always. Why should I pay $15 for a $.30 piece of plastic that has a whole bunch of stuff I don't want. So my alternatives are...?
Exactly... DRM'd crap.
Look... If I buy a book, can I read in in my home, car, on vacation, plane, etc... LEGALLY? Can I also copy segments of the book(say a chapter) and take those papers with me to share segments and excerpts with a classroom of kids who are having reading day? Sure I can. A book, and its contents, are available to me on my terms. Why can't music?
I WANT to buy, I REALLY DO! I think there is some great content out there that I WANT to own LEGALLY...
But I'll be damned if I am going to go through all the hassle of taking my ITMS DRM crap and converting it to a stardard mp3 format so I can play it on my "other" players. Same with movies... Its TOO MUCH HASSLE...
I'll just grab the pre-decrypted, ready-to-use, no DRM, no hassle, play anywhere, play anytime torrents, ftp files, usenet d/ls, etc... (hell I can automate this with a few scripts for God's sake)..and deal with the guilty conscience of cheating an artist out of a penny...
Its not that I WANT to cheat the artist out of his/her penny, but if you strip everything away it comes down to a pretty simple economic equation:
H = Hours of MY time spent converting DRM'd crap
V = Value of my time
X = Number of content files
AEC = Artist earnings per content file
So... you end up comparing H*V*X vs. AEC*X, and in MY mind the answer is always:
H*V*X > AEC*X
You go ahead and plug in your own numbers, I have, and to me, its just not worth it. My time is money, and if you think you are going to not only charge me money to buy your content, but then turn around and charge me (indirectly) to modify your content for my purposes, you're nuckin futs!
Wish I had mod points. Funny how so many seem to over look this point.
First laugh of the morning... A +1 Funny for you!
And not to put words in your mouth, but primarirly to point out to GP, that he/she did not see those questions. This should cement in your mind the differences here.
Yeah, I read all of you telling me how a job off-shored is not a job lost. I'll give you that. I'll even buy into the idea that you "may" expand the business to offer up some new (otherwise non-existant) jobs here.
My question is a what cost? Sub-standard working conditions? Slave wages/labor? A race to the bottom indeed.
It disturbs me that THESE issues are no center-stage in the debate. An AMERCIAN company should not be able to open up an office in India, ignoring American principles and working conditions because you are suddenly off our shores. It may save the company money, and even allow for expansion of the U.S. economy in the end, but you did it at the exploitation of the Indian workers you used by not offering equivalent pay/working conditions.
"Expansion to where? Third world countries may benefit from having a pool of low-cost labor with little regulation, but that doesn't help the labor at home."
YOU, the entry-level people, have to move to Bangalore. In turn, the "top talent" of Bangalore get Visas and green cards to come to the US.
We don't want to train you! Go away.
I, for one, am sick and tired of getting a new 4 year degree every 6 months just to keep up. Stop the train, I'm getting off.
He sees everything, knows the short and long term ramifications, and is making the "best bad" decision he can. To save as many as he can, because, in the end, he knows, as we all do in the back of our heads, he can't save us all.
I'm sorry, I don't like President Bush's policies either, but I don't think the man is evil. And I don't think he is stupid.
"I don't see it as unsolicited."
This is MY web connection. I pay Verizon for this service. What you are suggesting is akin to saying that my ISP can force me to view their advertisments before allowing me to surf the web. Nope, sorry, won't wash with me. I am paying a "provider" to provide "access", not "content". there is a HUGE difference here. I don't want their content, so I see no reason why I should have to pay (see bandwidth utilization) for their "content".
As for "If you don't want ads then pick one that does not show ads. You also have the choice of not using cell service at all. There is nothing unsolicited here. Every party enters these agreements voluntarily.", that is a specious argument at best. There are a limited number of players in this field, and if Verizon is allowed to do this, OF COURSE, the other providers will follow suit. Its a revenue stream they cannot ignore. I'm not saying they can not offer this as an optional service, but they will need to re-work the contracts and offer discounts to customers who opt for "content-equipped" access.
I, like I am sure many others here, now depend on cell service. Simply rejecting cell service is not an option, and it shouldn't have to be. There is no argument Verizon, or any other "access" provider can make for these ads other than as a pure-profit center. In so being, they can either offer discounted "access" service along with their "content", or content free access. They can not have it both ways, and my reading of the current legislation indicates that's NOT going to wash with the public or the legislature.
IANAL, but it would seem that some of this could fall under many states newly enacted statutes with regard to Unsolicited Advertising [naw.org].
Verizon had better be careful, lest they end up with a barage of class-action lawsuits...
"The real power of SOAP"...
is at the end of a long day to get the stick of everyone elses muck off of you.