Derek M Jones wrote: > Frank, > > >I think we need incentives to create *more* good programmers, not > >burdens that make it harder to become one. I'm happy to see the > >not-so-good programmers abandon programming entirely because they > >find it too hard, or not enough fun, > > Your wearing a shop stewards hat again.
I never wear my mother's hats. She was a shop steward, I'm a small business owner, and I understand capitalist imperatives quite well (though I think they're off-topic for this list, so I'll keep this short). > >Tools that might help in the organisation of software must still be > >subject to the judgement of the programmers, rather than override it. > >Otherwise, software development will get *worse*, [...] > > I do not want this to happen, and neither do you. > > We are both programmers and want to enhance the status of our > profession. I've shortened what I wrote above to make my point clearer -- I'm not directly concerned with the 'status of our profession', but with having better software in the world, and with ensuring that the judgement of skilled people prevails over the activities of mere tools. I want software development to improve, and that means both better programs, and more professionalism among programmers. Claims about how businesses just want 'cheapo programmers', with the implication that what businesses want is the only thing that matters, miss the point. Better software development helps everyone, businesses included; even badly run ones who think that the road to success is built by cutting costs. I don't think it's any surprise that a significant number of programmers that I would call 'good' (experienced, skilled in the art and intrisically motivated to do good work) are now working with software produced outside conventional business models, such as Linux. I also don't think it's any surprise that software like this is actually having a widespread positive impact, especially in business. (I dare you to start a discussion in the linux-kernel mailing list about how the kernel needs to be re-written so that Joe I-Can-Spell-C can muck about with it using some do-my-thinking-for-me tools his boss foisted upon him as part of some corporate methodology.) > Yes, automated tools will remove the need for 'good' programmers. No, they won't, any more than automated tools will remove the need for good writers, architects, doctors, teachers, hairdressers or any activity that's more than just a mechanical process with people in the loop. Tools just change what talent and skill can be focussed on. For example, a research group (at Stanford, I think) are developing code review tools, and sometimes post big messages to the Linux kernel mailing list with what these tools have flagged as potential bugs or design flaws in the current kernel (which currently consists of several million lines of C and assembler spread across several thousand files of source code). This input is welcomed and acted upon, according to the judgement of the senior developers on the list, and all subject to public peer review. > But the purpose of software development is not to create a cadre > of good programmers, but to make money for their employers. The *purpose* of software development is to develop software. That business currently finds this useful is a bonus, and helpful to those who'd like to earn a living from it. Even if business didn't find it useful, it's still an interesting and legitimate field of study and research, for many reasons. But the purpose of software development is certainly not to make money, any more than the purpose of, say, the performing arts is to make money, even though they can be used for that. > If psychology of programmer researchers were a bit more in tune with > these capitalist goals they might find their research more widely used > within industry. They might also find it easier to get funding for projects. If there are any researchers on the list who've stayed with us this far :-) , they might care to speak to this point. My interest in the work of PPIG stems from finding alternative and external views of the work that I and my colleagues and peers do that can provide insights (and, with luck, processes or tools) that I can use to write better software, and to help other programmers do the same. Most of this is done in the service of commercial clients. As such, I believe that it's actually the responsibility of business people to learn more about the research and knowledge that exists, and to seek ways to apply it to business problems for the long-term aim of wealth creation, rather than the responsibility of researchers to become sales people with elevator pitches, marketing plans and dodgy promises of enormous cost savings, all formulated to appeal to dim and desperate business managers everywhere. -- Frank Wales [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] - Automatic footer for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe discuss To join the announcements list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe announce To receive a help file, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] help This list is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/ If you have any problems or questions, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
