Don't put absolute faith in having degrees or certain types of degrees. Many CS degree programs haven't been around more than fifteen maybe twenty years. Note, that of some the very best engineers/consultants may have never finished their degrees.
Again, I agree. The single best software engineer/architect I ever hired was a 24-year-old high-school dropout (he did get his GED). But this was someone who kept up on leading-edge issues and technologies and was doing leading-edge development on his own at home. I believe he's now retired, having won the 'geek lottery' at a subsequent startup.
On the other hand, there's a lot of folks who mistake knowledge for skill and skill for talent. You really want all three...bruce..
The best programmers are generally more interested in having "cool" work than in maximizing their incomes. As long as you pay them enough and keep them interested and happy, you'll keep them. But you'll lose them when the work becomes boring/tedious, if they have an opportunity to work on an even cooler project, or if you piss them off in some way.
Yes, yes, and yes.
Also, you'll lose them if you fail to give them a chance to learn the latest technologies. I have been amazed and dumbfounded for many, many years at the short-sightededness of organizations that refuse to spend money to let their developers learn new things "because we're afraid they'll leave and get a better job elsewhere." In my experience, one of the major reasons developers (especially the good ones) leave our current jobs is to go learn new technologies. We worry more than anything else about becoming obsolete or irrelevant...bruce..
You misunderstand my all-too-succinct statement; unfortunately, my op-ed piece in BYTE had to be 600 words or less, so I didn't have much room for exceptions or nuances.
Heavens, no, there is nothing "base" about salary. My second job out of college (working on the Space Shuttle flight simulators at NASA/JSC), I turned down the first offer I received because I thought it was too low. I have always negotiated firmly on my salary and other benefits.
There is nothing inherently 'prima donna'-esqe about asking top dollar for demonstrably rare talent, as long as you recognize that (a) you may not get it, and (b) you may be the first to go in an economic downturn.
When I wrote that one line in the article, I was thinking in particular of two developers I had interviewed in the 1990-1991 time frame who were asking 6-figure salaries, signing bonuses, _and_ company-provided sports cars...and this was for joining a startup. They flattered themselves tremendously, and their requests were way out of line with both their talents and the then-current market situation.
Ironically, I went into computers some 27 years ago not because I thought it would pay well (starting salaries in the 1974 time frame were around $12-15K per year), but because I was (and am) a geek. It has been a pleasant surprise to find what I have been paid first as a consultant and now as an IT expert witness. My youngest daughter wants to go into IT; I tell her it's a lifetime employement guarantee. On the other hand, I have been laid off or had consulting/contract engagements end abruptly several times. A lot of developers (good and bad) are finding that the high-tech job market has suddenly cooled--and it's likely to be cool for some time.
In the other direction, it is very possible to be a prima donna without having an outrageous salary--you just have to be arrogant, self-centered, obnoxious, and vastly more concerned about yourself than about your team members or the success of the company that pays your salary. I'd rather have modestly-talented but professional developers working for me than highly talented primadonnas. And developers "who love what [they] do" and are "master[s] of [their] craft" are, in my experience, rarely primadonnas...bruce..
(2) Even many of those individuals with talent have insufficient knowledge of (and/or, apparently, desire to learn about) the art and science of software engineering and so persist in making the same stupid mistakes that have been well-documented for 30+ years.
(3) As a result, anyone who has had to recruit software developers can tell you how much muck you have to sift through to find the gems.
(4) I can't speak for the relevance of most CS departments; I know that my undergraduate CS program (BSCS, BYU, 1978) helped me tremendously when I went out into the real world. But that may have been an anomoly; I had some brilliant teachers with real-world experience (one had worked at Bell Labs; another went on to co-author and co-found Word Perfect).
(5) After some years in the workforce, many of those with talent and skills find they can double or triple their salary by becoming a consultant. This leads to a talent-flight from organizations.
In short, you're trying to find someone with talent, training, inclination to your topics and circumstances, and a lack of awareness of how much s/he could be making elsewhere.:-)
I published the above book in 1995 (M&T Books, ISBN 1-55851-379-3), which addressed a few of the same points (plus many, many not covered in the article--over 80 pitfalls in all). On the other hand, based on a cursory scan of the article, I question (a) how much the author really understands about OOD and (b) whether he's ever been on a well-run OOD project.
Note that I was and remain a proponent of OOD, but I treat it neither as a silver bullet nor a strawman. The author's tone and approach does little to lend credibility to his argument.
Incidentally, Pitfalls of Object-Oriented Development is out of print. I have the rights back and am working on a revised edition, which I am posting on-line (http://thinkwyde.org/pitfalls/) as I go along. Feedback is welcome; significant contributions will be attributed...bruce..
Not that innovative, I'm afraid. Such games go all the way back to Robotwar for the Apple II (see the reference in my ancient on-line game design notebooks; scroll down to the entry dated 17 dec 1981).
There was also a Mac program-the-robot game that had a visual programming system for which it was impossible to write a syntactically incorrect program. It sounds almost identical to what you're describing (drag and drop icons into a 2D grid), but my aging brain can't quite remember its title. Kind of sad, since I believe I reviewed it for Macworld. Sigh...bruce..
Games were important back in the 80's and 90's, but that era is coming to a close. [where is the original for this hiding?]
This has got to be tongue-in-cheek flame bait. I can't believe anyone on/. would write this with a straight face.:-)
Ten years ago, home computers were relatively weak; business PCs were the 'big guns'. Over the last decade, that has reversed in a big way. (If it weren't for Y2K, there would still be plenty of major corporations using 486 systems.) Computer games have driven the constant churn for faster processors, more RAM, better 3D cards.
At the same time, competition in game design is driving bleeding-edge technology in graphics, simulation, world-modeling, and other nifty technologies. Budgets for commercial games have skyrocketed. One report I read claimed that the budget for Final Fantasy VII was $30M, and that the parent company considered Hollywood to be its competition.
The problem--speaking as a 'golden age' game designer (read: old fart who huffs and puffs a lot and remembers the 6502 page 0 map fondly)--is that the technical/artisitic barrier for new games is very, very high, so the market is captured by firms with loads of cash. It's hard to break through that.
I still get fan mail about my one published game (SunDog: Frozen Legacy, original Apple II version, released 1984), the gist of which is, "Most of the games today suck." That's unfair; I look at modern games in awe at the technology and sophistication behind them. But many of the ones I play do lack elegance or effectiveness in game design, attempting to cover their tracks with graphics, sound, and a zillion options.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Open source games sound interesting, but game design and development is far more intense, difficult, and uncertain than, say, writing a commercial word processor (speaking as someone who had done both). They both have to work--but the game has to be entertaining as well...bruce..
I read the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal every day (well, OK, WSJ is only M-F). I find reading the hardcopy version is faster and more effective than trying to read the same papers on-line.
In addition, I have a list of 20+ sites I browse at least once per day (including Slashdot); among those sites are several other newspapers (NY Times, Washington Times, etc.) that I scan in order to get additional (and often different) reference points on key areas or to get regional coverage...bruce..
Let's look over the past decade (and we're talking ages 37-47, so it's not as though I'm some fresh young blood):
1990-1995: CTO at Pages Software (NeXTstep startup) -- baseline was 70 hours/week for 3.5 years, with peaks of 100+ hours/week, until first product ship (March 94); big reward to myself was to stop coming in weekends (and so dropped down to a steady 60 hrs/wk)
1995-1996: living in San Diego, consulting in Newport Beach (3+ hours driving/day, plus 8-10 hrs/day working)
1996-1999: CTO at Object Systems Group; 'merely' 50 hours/week for first two years in DC; relocated to company HQ in Dallas and dropped to 40 hrs/week until I started commuting every week to Richmond (VA).
1999-present: Director at PwC (IT expert in legal disputes): runs hot and cold, depending upon cases involved (e.g., have had occasional 70-hour weeks and expect more to come). Spent five months commuting every other week from Dallas to DC before finally relocating here. The 40-hour weeks with no travel feel like vacation.
Must be a whole lot of 'knowledge workers' taking it easy somewhere...bruce..
Slashdot Mirror
Brilliantly concise: irrelevance, ignorance, illiteracy, and vulgarity all tucked into a mere six words. My hat is off to you. ;-) ..bruce..
Again, I agree. The single best software engineer/architect I ever hired was a 24-year-old high-school dropout (he did get his GED). But this was someone who kept up on leading-edge issues and technologies and was doing leading-edge development on his own at home. I believe he's now retired, having won the 'geek lottery' at a subsequent startup.
On the other hand, there's a lot of folks who mistake knowledge for skill and skill for talent. You really want all three. ..bruce..
Yes, yes, and yes.
Also, you'll lose them if you fail to give them a chance to learn the latest technologies. I have been amazed and dumbfounded for many, many years at the short-sightededness of organizations that refuse to spend money to let their developers learn new things "because we're afraid they'll leave and get a better job elsewhere." In my experience, one of the major reasons developers (especially the good ones) leave our current jobs is to go learn new technologies. We worry more than anything else about becoming obsolete or irrelevant. ..bruce..
You misunderstand my all-too-succinct statement; unfortunately, my op-ed piece in BYTE had to be 600 words or less, so I didn't have much room for exceptions or nuances.
Heavens, no, there is nothing "base" about salary. My second job out of college (working on the Space Shuttle flight simulators at NASA/JSC), I turned down the first offer I received because I thought it was too low. I have always negotiated firmly on my salary and other benefits.
There is nothing inherently 'prima donna'-esqe about asking top dollar for demonstrably rare talent, as long as you recognize that (a) you may not get it, and (b) you may be the first to go in an economic downturn.
When I wrote that one line in the article, I was thinking in particular of two developers I had interviewed in the 1990-1991 time frame who were asking 6-figure salaries, signing bonuses, _and_ company-provided sports cars...and this was for joining a startup. They flattered themselves tremendously, and their requests were way out of line with both their talents and the then-current market situation.
Ironically, I went into computers some 27 years ago not because I thought it would pay well (starting salaries in the 1974 time frame were around $12-15K per year), but because I was (and am) a geek. It has been a pleasant surprise to find what I have been paid first as a consultant and now as an IT expert witness. My youngest daughter wants to go into IT; I tell her it's a lifetime employement guarantee. On the other hand, I have been laid off or had consulting/contract engagements end abruptly several times. A lot of developers (good and bad) are finding that the high-tech job market has suddenly cooled--and it's likely to be cool for some time.
In the other direction, it is very possible to be a prima donna without having an outrageous salary--you just have to be arrogant, self-centered, obnoxious, and vastly more concerned about yourself than about your team members or the success of the company that pays your salary. I'd rather have modestly-talented but professional developers working for me than highly talented primadonnas. And developers "who love what [they] do" and are "master[s] of [their] craft" are, in my experience, rarely primadonnas. ..bruce..
(2) Even many of those individuals with talent have insufficient knowledge of (and/or, apparently, desire to learn about) the art and science of software engineering and so persist in making the same stupid mistakes that have been well-documented for 30+ years.
(3) As a result, anyone who has had to recruit software developers can tell you how much muck you have to sift through to find the gems.
(4) I can't speak for the relevance of most CS departments; I know that my undergraduate CS program (BSCS, BYU, 1978) helped me tremendously when I went out into the real world. But that may have been an anomoly; I had some brilliant teachers with real-world experience (one had worked at Bell Labs; another went on to co-author and co-found Word Perfect).
(5) After some years in the workforce, many of those with talent and skills find they can double or triple their salary by becoming a consultant. This leads to a talent-flight from organizations.
In short, you're trying to find someone with talent, training, inclination to your topics and circumstances, and a lack of awareness of how much s/he could be making elsewhere. :-)
Best of luck. ..bruce..
Note that I was and remain a proponent of OOD, but I treat it neither as a silver bullet nor a strawman. The author's tone and approach does little to lend credibility to his argument.
Incidentally, Pitfalls of Object-Oriented Development is out of print. I have the rights back and am working on a revised edition, which I am posting on-line (http://thinkwyde.org/pitfalls/) as I go along. Feedback is welcome; significant contributions will be attributed. ..bruce..
There was also a Mac program-the-robot game that had a visual programming system for which it was impossible to write a syntactically incorrect program. It sounds almost identical to what you're describing (drag and drop icons into a 2D grid), but my aging brain can't quite remember its title. Kind of sad, since I believe I reviewed it for Macworld. Sigh. ..bruce..
(has-been game designer, SunDog: Frozen Legacy)
This has got to be tongue-in-cheek flame bait. I can't believe anyone on /. would write this with a straight face. :-)
Ten years ago, home computers were relatively weak; business PCs were the 'big guns'. Over the last decade, that has reversed in a big way. (If it weren't for Y2K, there would still be plenty of major corporations using 486 systems.) Computer games have driven the constant churn for faster processors, more RAM, better 3D cards.
At the same time, competition in game design is driving bleeding-edge technology in graphics, simulation, world-modeling, and other nifty technologies. Budgets for commercial games have skyrocketed. One report I read claimed that the budget for Final Fantasy VII was $30M, and that the parent company considered Hollywood to be its competition.
The problem--speaking as a 'golden age' game designer (read: old fart who huffs and puffs a lot and remembers the 6502 page 0 map fondly)--is that the technical/artisitic barrier for new games is very, very high, so the market is captured by firms with loads of cash. It's hard to break through that.
I still get fan mail about my one published game (SunDog: Frozen Legacy, original Apple II version, released 1984), the gist of which is, "Most of the games today suck." That's unfair; I look at modern games in awe at the technology and sophistication behind them. But many of the ones I play do lack elegance or effectiveness in game design, attempting to cover their tracks with graphics, sound, and a zillion options.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Open source games sound interesting, but game design and development is far more intense, difficult, and uncertain than, say, writing a commercial word processor (speaking as someone who had done both). They both have to work--but the game has to be entertaining as well. ..bruce..
In addition, I have a list of 20+ sites I browse at least once per day (including Slashdot); among those sites are several other newspapers (NY Times, Washington Times, etc.) that I scan in order to get additional (and often different) reference points on key areas or to get regional coverage. ..bruce..
Let's look over the past decade (and we're talking ages 37-47, so it's not as though I'm some fresh young blood):
Must be a whole lot of 'knowledge workers' taking it easy somewhere. ..bruce..