Re:Reading Code is Key to Writing Good Code
by alttab on Thursday November 19, 2009 @12:20AM
(#949786)
I work at IBM. You can't get more corporate than that.
I had a co-worker say this to me last week - "I just feel like [our manager] treats people like resources, batteries if you will."
He complains a lot and his department transfer is going poorly, but I couldn't help but agree with him here.
To say that its creative writing, painting, or composing is frankly dead on. I don't have to convince our audience here that is true, especially anyone who has seen a truly elegant solution to a problem.
Corporate software definitely sucks as a rule, I believe, because the passion and motivation for excellence has been sucked out of them. I was discussing design philosophy (as related to a structure/organization question) with my technical team lead and he said something to the effect of (not far from verbatim), "Yeah, I'm not really passionate about [design philosophy], I usually follow whats there."
This is a guy that supposed to be leading a group of developers. Over a year and a half I have determined that taking a diplomatic approach to design and programming issues isn't always the best solution. It leads to disconnected and mangled code.
Apple is different in this regard because the CEO was, and at heart (hopefully), still is a programmer (despite app store mayhem - everyone makes mistakes). The market has noticed and felt the difference. (Also notice how Apple doesn't do a lot - if any - corporate level development.)
I agree with your stance completely and am willing to make the bold statement that the only person that should lead an organization that produces software as a direct product for consumers should be someone that has developed before and still has the passion about the art.
(Edit: a quick side note to all of this - I have friends that are in the Silicon Valley area and quit IBM way before I contemplated it. At first I thought they were whiny because they didn't get to write python code but what it comes down to is they understood and accepted the fundamental breakdown between organizational behavior and the art of computer science.)
I had a co-worker say this to me last week - "I just feel like [our manager] treats people like resources, batteries if you will."
He complains a lot and his department transfer is going poorly, but I couldn't help but agree with him here.
To say that its creative writing, painting, or composing is frankly dead on. I don't have to convince our audience here that is true, especially anyone who has seen a truly elegant solution to a problem.
Corporate software definitely sucks as a rule, I believe, because the passion and motivation for excellence has been sucked out of them. I was discussing design philosophy (as related to a structure/organization question) with my technical team lead and he said something to the effect of (not far from verbatim), "Yeah, I'm not really passionate about [design philosophy], I usually follow whats there."
This is a guy that supposed to be leading a group of developers. Over a year and a half I have determined that taking a diplomatic approach to design and programming issues isn't always the best solution. It leads to disconnected and mangled code.
Apple is different in this regard because the CEO was, and at heart (hopefully), still is a programmer (despite app store mayhem - everyone makes mistakes). The market has noticed and felt the difference. (Also notice how Apple doesn't do a lot - if any - corporate level development.)
I agree with your stance completely and am willing to make the bold statement that the only person that should lead an organization that produces software as a direct product for consumers should be someone that has developed before and still has the passion about the art.
(Edit: a quick side note to all of this - I have friends that are in the Silicon Valley area and quit IBM way before I contemplated it. At first I thought they were whiny because they didn't get to write python code but what it comes down to is they understood and accepted the fundamental breakdown between organizational behavior and the art of computer science.)