5 ms·

Well written! I’ve always cringed when I’ve read anything that Uncle Bob writes. It almost seems like his entire existence depends on the acceptance of unit tes

by Tehnix 9y ago

Well written! I’ve always cringed when I’ve read anything that Uncle Bob writes. It almost seems like his entire existence depends on the acceptance of unit testing, and the unjustified dismissal of tools, especially type systems, seems to me something a only a novice would do when evangelizing their favorite lang (we’ve all been there, right?...), until they get more experience with other methods and approaches.

averell 9y ago
It's hard to build your consultant image by telling people that multiple methods and tools might work. It's easier to market a simple cure. Also, the point to "stop making shitty software" is not the same as "stop making mistakes". You can ship high quality software even while being human, it's just slower and more costly. And while I agree with the article in general, I do believe the current balance has shifted towards too fast iteration and shoddy quality. Just look at the recent iOS/OSX releases. But even that might make business sense, because of the even shittier alternatives.
- icebraining 9y ago
  > It's hard to build your consultant image by telling people that multiple methods and tools might work. It's easier to market a simple cure. The thing about these middlebrow dismissals is that they work the other way around: "It's hard to build your consultant image by telling people that they need self-discipline and rules. It's easier to just sell them on tools that will fix the problem."
  - averell 9y ago
    I just don't think it's likely that the real reason most software is crappy, is because nobody thought of extending unit test coverage yet. Selling tools here is not "the other way", it's the same problem. What if the problem is bad management? Or low experience/expertise in general? All of these methods and tools are only optimizing locally, and cannot help the root causes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
Delmania 9y ago
I never understand why Martin gets the kind of attention he does. As far as I can tell, the only significant achievement he's done for the technical community is the Agile manifesto. Outside of that, he's a typical consultant in that he's got books, training courses, etc. However, I have yet to find a significant publicly known project he's been involved in where he's had to put his principle into practice.
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  There's definitely two types of very well known speakers. People who have worked on some really notable project. Linus Torvalds, David Heinemeier Hansson, Joel Spolsky and so on. I know these people are worth listening to because I can see that their code is a success. Then there are people who I have no idea what they have ever written at all. Robert Martin, Martin Fowler and so on. I don't know if I should listen to what these people say at all. Does it work? What software projects have they made a success that I can look at? I suppose in the latter case it's usually closed-source enterprise code that they've consulted on? Well if I can't look at it I'm not sure I'm just prepared to take their word that it's successful. Is this reasonable of me?
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    > People who have worked on some really notable project. Linus Torvalds, David Heinemeier Hansson, Joel Spolsky and so on. I know these people are worth listening to because I can see that their code is a success. I agree with your examples, Linus Torvalds in particular. However, I would not consider Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates worth listening to on a technical level just because their products are a success.
    - jerf 9y ago
      Bill Gates was actually a pretty decent programmer. His technical insights peter out somewhere in the 1980s or early 90s at most, but he's had some interesting things to say about those eras. (Interesting in the sense that it's someone speaking about the eras that was there in a big way, not necessarily because he's got surprising insights into software engineering or something.)

by Tehnix 9y ago

averell 9y ago

It's hard to build your consultant image by telling people that multiple methods and tools might work. It's easier to market a simple cure. Also, the point to "stop making shitty software" is not the same as "stop making mistakes". You can ship high quality software even while being human, it's just slower and more costly. And while I agree with the article in general, I do believe the current balance has shifted towards too fast iteration and shoddy quality. Just look at the recent iOS/OSX releases. But even that might make business sense, because of the even shittier alternatives.

icebraining 9y ago
> It's hard to build your consultant image by telling people that multiple methods and tools might work. It's easier to market a simple cure. The thing about these middlebrow dismissals is that they work the other way around: "It's hard to build your consultant image by telling people that they need self-discipline and rules. It's easier to just sell them on tools that will fix the problem."
- averell 9y ago
  I just don't think it's likely that the real reason most software is crappy, is because nobody thought of extending unit test coverage yet. Selling tools here is not "the other way", it's the same problem. What if the problem is bad management? Or low experience/expertise in general? All of these methods and tools are only optimizing locally, and cannot help the root causes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Delmania 9y ago

I never understand why Martin gets the kind of attention he does. As far as I can tell, the only significant achievement he's done for the technical community is the Agile manifesto. Outside of that, he's a typical consultant in that he's got books, training courses, etc. However, I have yet to find a significant publicly known project he's been involved in where he's had to put his principle into practice.

chrisseaton 9y ago
There's definitely two types of very well known speakers. People who have worked on some really notable project. Linus Torvalds, David Heinemeier Hansson, Joel Spolsky and so on. I know these people are worth listening to because I can see that their code is a success. Then there are people who I have no idea what they have ever written at all. Robert Martin, Martin Fowler and so on. I don't know if I should listen to what these people say at all. Does it work? What software projects have they made a success that I can look at? I suppose in the latter case it's usually closed-source enterprise code that they've consulted on? Well if I can't look at it I'm not sure I'm just prepared to take their word that it's successful. Is this reasonable of me?
- rootlocus 9y ago
  > People who have worked on some really notable project. Linus Torvalds, David Heinemeier Hansson, Joel Spolsky and so on. I know these people are worth listening to because I can see that their code is a success. I agree with your examples, Linus Torvalds in particular. However, I would not consider Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates worth listening to on a technical level just because their products are a success.
  - jerf 9y ago
    Bill Gates was actually a pretty decent programmer. His technical insights peter out somewhere in the 1980s or early 90s at most, but he's had some interesting things to say about those eras. (Interesting in the sense that it's someone speaking about the eras that was there in a big way, not necessarily because he's got surprising insights into software engineering or something.)