I wrote:
> > If I ran a software company, I'd do the same thing. Software companies
do
> > not exist to keep programmers supplied with money to buy action figures
and
> > killer game systems.
And Jeff kindly pointed out:
> That's pretty insulting to programmers. Thanks.
My apologies. I was making a point that software companies aren't in
business for the benefit of their employees, but rather that they make
software. Therefore, one of their primary concerns is that the programs are
actually written. I shouldn't have phrased it the way I did, as it came off
rather condescending. For what it's worth, while I'm not a programmer, I do
own a huge collection of action figures and comics, so I didn't consider
what I wrote insulting.
> > They make software to sell. If they have no software
> > to sell, they make no money. If they make no money, they can't pay the
> > programmers, and the programmers have to sell their Playstations to
survive.
> > Thus, while I don't really enjoy all aspects of corporate life, I'm
> > comfortable with the trade off. I'm willing to forgo surfing the web in
> > exchange for a paycheck, which gives me food, shelter and comic books.
>
> You don't seem to have a good grasp on what is involved in programming -
> it's often a matter of inspiration; its not, for the majority of
> programmers I know and work with, something that you turn on at 9am and
> off at 5pm.
I never said that it was. I was pointing out that it makes sense for a
company to take the steps necessary to ensure that they're putting out a
good product. I was also specifically addressing Kristin's suggestion that
those not engaged in programming should be held to a stricter standard of
conduct than programmers.
Adam C. Lipscomb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 32384792
