Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Arg! (Score:3, Interesting)

    I've got a paper copy of a lot of that. Part of my study a few years ago in a project management unit. The unit that got my vote as wankiest unit. Not just atrocious academic writing, but management writing too.

    It's scary stuff.
    --
      ---ict / Spoon
    • Re:Arg! (Score:5, Insightful)

      I had an interesting talk at YAPC with someone who's doing a PhD in software management. He pointed out that software management is trying to do what people management does: obtain consistent quality through well-specified standardized processes. They're trying to get away from relying on brilliant programmers, in other words.

      I pointed out, and he agreed, that it's yet to be shown to actually work. It's one thing to take anybody and have them operate the deep fryer to produce a McNugget indistinguishab

      • by ziggy (25) on 2003.06.30 8:23 (#21560) Journal
        He pointed out that software management is trying to do what people management does: obtain consistent quality through well-specified standardized processes.
        Remember that programming is a craft, so forget what the b-school types tell you about management. Look at how carpenters self-manage.

        In the olden days, when there was a progression from apprentice to journeyman to carpenter to master carpenter, there was no set pace to advancement. There was no expectation that you deserved a higher status simply because you put another two years into the system. You progressed when you had demonstrated sufficient skill. When you have to find work for someone without the requisite skills, you find some task they can do to help out (and keep them from accidentally maiming themselves).

        In some shops I've worked in, the principle of least-damage was in effect: mark out some area of the system where an apprentice can make a contribution without wreaking havoc. This is pretty much where we are today, and where carpentry hit its steady state.

        It's nice to dream that you can take a room full of (programmers|carpenters) and simply teach them a process to build a widget. You can to some extent, if the widgets never change. And we all know that programming (and great carpentry) is about making something fresh, new and dynamic, not churning out plugs.

        • Re:Arg! (Score:2, Informative)

          In the olden days, when there was a progression from apprentice to journeyman to carpenter to master carpenter...
          Hmm...that sort of thing seems to mirror Advogato's trust metric.
          --

          ------------------------------
          You are what you think.