The only way to keep your skills sharp is to keep coding. "Pure" architects, the ones who only write edicts from an ivory tower tend not to keep their skills for one simple reason: problems do not normally reside in architecture but implementation (you really pick up on problems in implementation). So you could always work on home projects.
The second option is to push for a method like XP (Extreme programming) in which everybody codes (in pairs). This allows for your skill (the coding skill that got you your promotion) to be transmitted to other members in the team and to the project you'll be working on. Who knows, you may pair up with a kid out of college who'll teach you a thing or two about coding or ressource management.
Lastly, a rant: why do organizations try to push techies out of the jobs that they do well ? I've seen a gazillion good coders move into management jobs and just Peter Principle out. I've seen good coders move into architecting jobs and all of a sudden lose perspective on the goal of system developpement: deliver a system.
Why is going into architecture or management a promotion ? Shouldn't it be a skill ?
Try coding something large with a good design specification first. Put lots of time into it -before- you code, and see how much easier it is to code.... Just try it....
The Extreme programming (XP) guys would disagree with you.
The longer you think about a problem, the more the
client's requirements change. You may be desining
something that is changing is you design. The question then becomes wether all the design is
actially worth the money that's being spent on it.
And pretty all the "design first, code after" is based on the idea that the later you are in a project, the more a bugfix will cost.
This idea has not been re-verifyied in a long time. Maybe modern programming techniques and
business requirements have changed the equation.
Although it might be a separate issue (security), your point is taken. Especially in a world where people think that 4 digit bank card codes actually give you security.
As a general statement, this is false. I will agree that corporations (and govs) will do everything in their power to find out about everybody. So remaining anonymous around them, is probably a good idea.
> The need for anonymity is different, but equally important, as the need for privacy. Anonymity has as a large component the ability to speak freely without reprisal
Yes to both halves of your sentence. There are good (many many many) good side effects to anonymity.
> Privacy is essentially the right to be left alone, to not have every tom, dick and harry know the most intimate details of your life and personality. Privacy makes it harder for people to steal your identity or manipulate you monetarily. Anonymity can enable privacy.
But anonymity also has you loose your identity: anybody can become you, just by saying that they are.
> BTW, I'm posting AC because I support anonymity
Which is too bad, this is a fun conversation and continuing it off line would have been cool.
> Yes, some stupid and/or criminal acts are done anonymously
You're actually the first person to mention this.
> but the protection afforded critics and whistleblowers by anonymity far outweighs any detriment from fools and crooks.
But the notion of tradeoff implies a line. Whether is is narrow or wide is a matter of opinion.
I happen to think that the benefits of anonymity are greater, but all of us must be aware of the trade-offs.
>So, who was Deep Throat? Why is it every time someone speaks out against the government or the big corps from inside they speak on the condition of anonymity? I don't see the mainstream press being forced not to take anonymous sources.
That arguement is mostly about freedom of the press. And if I published a story based SOLELY on an anonymous source, it would be irresponsible, right ? Other people had to talk to make Watergate a credible story.
> Kiddie porn and warez, even "terrorism,"... are nothing but big boogiemen.
I agree.
> The killing of anonymity is something that big governments and corporations want so that they can more easily persecute people for their viewpoints.
Actually, corporations would be more interested in the marketing than persecution. Governement are another issue.
>Most importantly, you can speak your mind on the net and then go to work the next day and have a job. Something that might not happen if you say the wrong thing and it is attributed to you as a real-life person.
If people do this irresponsibly, you can get in trouble. I could forge statements anonymously about the place you work for and attribute them to you. You could get into trouble, and defending against them could be hard.
> SOME FORM OF ANONYMITY is the only way you can express something and have it be private.
You seem to be qualifying your statement. Are you, or did you mean TOTAL anonimity.
I agree with everything you say. But you must agree that at some point, leaders must step forward. And on issues like napster and such, these leaders must come out of non-establishement centers right ?
I am not conservative at all, but still think that there is a distinction between privacy and anonymity.
Privacy is good, everybody agrees about this.
Anonymity detaches you from responsibility and prevents any real progress on many issues. It's not just about catching kiddie-pornsters.
People who actually want to change things rarely do it anonymously. They do it out in the open, and face the consequences while trying to heighten public conciousness.
Anonymous actions rarely have the same effect.
The real problem is with corporations not behaving responsibly with private information. And I'll laugh in the face of anybody who thinks we could trust them.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way to keep your skills sharp is to keep coding. "Pure" architects, the ones who only write edicts from an ivory tower tend not to keep their skills for one simple reason: problems do not normally reside in architecture but implementation (you really pick up on problems in implementation). So you could always work on home projects.
:) )
The second option is to push for a method like XP (Extreme programming) in which everybody codes (in pairs). This allows for your skill (the coding skill that got you your promotion) to be transmitted to other members in the team and to the project you'll be working on. Who knows, you may pair up with a kid out of college who'll teach you a thing or two about coding or ressource management.
Lastly, a rant: why do organizations try to push techies out of the jobs that they do well ? I've seen a gazillion good coders move into management jobs and just Peter Principle out. I've seen good coders move into architecting jobs and all of a sudden lose perspective on the goal of system developpement: deliver a system.
Why is going into architecture or management a promotion ? Shouldn't it be a skill ?
JP Belanger (just a programmer
jpbelang at eloas dot qc dot ca
Try coding something large with a good design specification first. Put lots of time into it -before- you code, and see how much easier it is to code.... Just try it....
The Extreme programming (XP) guys would disagree with you.
The longer you think about a problem, the more the
client's requirements change. You may be desining
something that is changing is you design. The question then becomes wether all the design is
actially worth the money that's being spent on it.
And pretty all the "design first, code after" is based on the idea that the later you are in a project, the more a bugfix will cost.
This idea has not been re-verifyied in a long time. Maybe modern programming techniques and
business requirements have changed the equation.
Although it might be a separate issue (security), your point is taken. Especially in a world where people think that 4 digit bank card codes actually give you security.
> Without anonymity, there is no privacy.
As a general statement, this is false. I will agree that corporations (and govs) will do everything in their power to find out about everybody. So remaining anonymous around them, is probably a good idea.
> The need for anonymity is different, but equally important, as the need for privacy. Anonymity has as a large component the ability to speak freely without reprisal
Yes to both halves of your sentence. There are good (many many many) good side effects to anonymity.
> Privacy is essentially the right to be left alone, to not have every tom, dick and harry know the most intimate details of your life and personality. Privacy makes it harder for people to steal your identity or manipulate you monetarily. Anonymity can enable privacy.
But anonymity also has you loose your identity: anybody can become you, just by saying that they are.
> BTW, I'm posting AC because I support anonymity
Which is too bad, this is a fun conversation and continuing it off line would have been cool.
> Yes, some stupid and/or criminal acts are done anonymously
You're actually the first person to mention this.
> but the protection afforded critics and whistleblowers by anonymity far outweighs any detriment from fools and crooks.
But the notion of tradeoff implies a line. Whether is is narrow or wide is a matter of opinion.
I happen to think that the benefits of anonymity are greater, but all of us must be aware of the trade-offs.
jpbelang@eloas.qc.ca
Corporations owe me nothing at all.
Govenement needs me to get elected. In today's
world, granted it ain't much, but it's something.
But the question in itself (who do you trust less) sort of reflects the sad state of affairs.
>So, who was Deep Throat? Why is it every time someone speaks out against the government or the big corps from inside they speak on the condition of anonymity? I don't see the mainstream press being forced not to take anonymous sources.
... are nothing but big boogiemen.
That arguement is mostly about freedom of the press. And if I published a story based SOLELY on an anonymous source, it would be irresponsible, right ? Other people had to talk to make Watergate a credible story.
> Kiddie porn and warez, even "terrorism,"
I agree.
> The killing of anonymity is something that big governments and corporations want so that they can more easily persecute people for their viewpoints.
Actually, corporations would be more interested in the marketing than persecution. Governement are another issue.
>Most importantly, you can speak your mind on the net and then go to work the next day and have a job. Something that might not happen if you say the wrong thing and it is attributed to you as a real-life person.
If people do this irresponsibly, you can get in trouble. I could forge statements anonymously about the place you work for and attribute them to you. You could get into trouble, and defending
against them could be hard.
> SOME FORM OF ANONYMITY is the only way you can express something and have it be private.
You seem to be qualifying your statement. Are you, or did you mean TOTAL anonimity.
I agree with everything you say. But you must agree that at some point, leaders must step forward. And on issues like napster and such, these leaders must come out of non-establishement centers right ?
Actually, you vote for non-anonymous candidates.
Without these, democracy doesn't work.
I am not conservative at all, but still think that there is a distinction between privacy and anonymity.
Privacy is good, everybody agrees about this.
Anonymity detaches you from responsibility and prevents any real progress on many issues. It's not just about catching kiddie-pornsters.
People who actually want to change things rarely do it anonymously. They do it out in the open, and face the consequences while trying to heighten
public conciousness.
Anonymous actions rarely have the same effect.
The real problem is with corporations not behaving responsibly with private information. And I'll laugh in the face of anybody who thinks we could trust them.