2 ms·
I'd suggest that maybe we're all looking at programming the wrong way. Not everyone can build a decent sized building, and the people designing and managing th
by bloaf 10y ago
I'd suggest that maybe we're all looking at programming the wrong way.
Not everyone can build a decent sized building, and the people designing and managing their construction are likely also in the top intelligence quartile. But they're not necessarily the ones doing the actual construction of the thing.
In programming, there seems to me to be a refusal do the kind of delegation that occurs in construction. Instead, we've got a huge market of tools designed to reduce boilerplate and increase abstraction so that the highly intelligent programmer can get more done faster.
That's all well and good, but at the end of the day there are programming nails that need to get hammered, and its not going to matter if they're hammered by a MENSA member or not. The current mindset seems to want to deny this, and make every programming task something that must be handled by the best of the best.
- brianwawok 10y agoSo it is fairly easy to split building up into the thinking part (design, planning, etc), and the grunt part (nailing crap together). People try and try to apply the analogy to software. Heck that was the entire premise of EJBs. Have your smart people design the system. Then hire a bunch of foreign slave labor to implement the interfaces and BLAMO the program is done. It just. doesn't. work. No matter how good your up front design is, designs need to change over time. That is what makes software so powerful. But if you are just a code grunt and you don't KNOW how to design anything, you won't know when things need to change. So what do you do, keep adding more and more if blocks until a senior person can code review it? That is a crappy way to build software. WAYYY better to have 2-3 smart people working together than 1 genius and 14 code monkies.