> Firstly code quality is a very nebulous term and means different > things depending on the context. > The assertion that when something is being done for money rather than > as a hobby lowers the quality of said work (whichever way you > understand quality) is false. > Look at any mission critical software (medical, car safety systems, > nuclear power station management) and try to have it delivered by > hobbyists. To expand the argument further, look at professional sports > vs. amateur sports. > It is true that hobbyists have more enthusiasm and energy, but they > usually lack efficiencies and best practices of professional setups. > > By hobbyists I mean paid hobbyists. A person who's not a hobbyist, will try finishing the job earliest possible and get paid, a hobbyist on the other hand (if he's hired) will try to code better, in a more efficient manner to as to reduce bugs, security flaws etc... we'll see the same trend when designing the software architecture.
Cause making such software is the hobbyist's hobby, it has to do with things other than money. A non-hobbyist thinks on his work only during work, whereas hobbyists take it to their personal lives, cause coding is a major part of their lives and would do it even if they didn't get paid. The result is interest and good quality code. It's a hobbyist who tries to make code more manageable, more readable, more maintainable, etc ... i.e. professional. And we see this in real life. Linux, BSD, Apache, MySQL, SAMBA etc... beat the crap out of their propitiatory counterparts when it comes to reliability and performance. Also, all professional athletes who're successful are also hobbyists. There're no professional athletes who do sports for money only; but that's not true in the the IT field. > > > Finally, why will one be > > interested in developing solely for the profit of a company? > > Might sound controversial, but people do work for their employers > benefit, because they are being rewarded for their work. > I work, they pay. Simple as that. Money however is only one side of the > coin. > > If I have a choice and do either bad work or good work for the same > pay (lets assume that my effort and my expense are the same in both > cases), why would I ever choose to do bad work? > I would be doing disservice only to myself, lowering my standards, > becoming complacent and lazy, eventually to lose my enthusiasm about > anything to do with my work. Work being big part of our modern lives, > this bad blood would spill outside of work too. > > Or I could do a good job, or perhaps the best job that I can, and be > more satisfied about my work and life in general. I could try to learn > how to deliver best possible product within constraints of commercial > development and in general contribute to the pool of positive energy > floating around. The choice is yours. > > Problem is that few managers and few workers can see things like that. > > And the workers who do are usually of top quality. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/android-discuss/-/pIOzvs3XEwIJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en.
