3 ms·
I’ll upvote, not downvote since this is worthy of discussion. First observation... This stance only works if you’re so talented that you can succeed without o
by mathattack 6y ago
I’ll upvote, not downvote since this is worthy of discussion.
First observation... This stance only works if you’re so talented that you can succeed without outside help, and you have a boss that respects your value and can take ownership of building bridges for you. Those bosses are rare.
Observation two... Building bridges and helping others makes it easier, not harder, to get things done.
Observation three... Some people who take this stance aren’t worth it. Many folks take this stance to purposefully close their ears to ideas that could be useful.
Observation four... The person referenced in the article is someone who can be a huge net positive in building developer tools.
- Silhouette 6y agoI think the GP is describing an artistic/hobbyist view of software development. If you're doing it purely for your own enjoyment, with no external requirements to constrain you, you can take all the time you want and follow whatever process you want and try to achieve whatever you consider to be perfection. This contrasts sharply with professional software development, where you are building software for a purpose and often within a specified budget and timescales. In this case, you can't be selfish any more, because the whole reason for what you're doing is to satisfy the need of someone else. Processes and tools that you can happily ignore on your fun projects become relevant. Being unwilling or unable to work effectively with other developers or with people who have different roles on the project team makes you almost worthless. Taking risks that no-one else knows about becomes a danger to the whole project. Your goal isn't to achieve perfection, it's to deliver software that meets the requirements, on time, on budget, to an acceptable standard.