3 ms·
as I see it, it comes down to ownership. Something about treating something which ain't yours (such as a software system with millions of lines of code) as if
by bsedlm 5y ago
as I see it, it comes down to ownership.
Something about treating something which ain't yours (such as a software system with millions of lines of code) as if it were.
Something about maintaining a complex software system which you are responsible for, but somehow are never allowed to make simpler for your own sake. You are only paid for work which increase the "value" (money, profit, whatever) of the real owners of the business. It's not really worth their money to pay you to make your own job easier.
> Quality happens only when someone is responsible for it.
The easy way for this to happen is to be able to own, really own what you do. This just doesn't happen in the 'software industry'.
- shadowgovt 5y agoFully agree. This is one of the implicit advantages of most corporate structures; the ownership question has default answers. Who owns the product? The company. Who maintains the product? Whoever the company pays to maintain it. Usually, companies will build out trees of responsibility so some sub-group is responsible for smaller pieces of large products (with ultimate responsibility "rolling up" back to company ownership). How can I contribute? Your boss will tell you what needs maintenance or improvement. Do it or you're fired. If you have something else you want to work on, a good company will respond to your feedback and shuffle responsibilities around (you get better work when employees are satisfied), but ultimately, someone needs to maintain the build tools and if that's what they hired you to do, that's what you're doing until you decide to stop taking their money for it. There are lots of disadvantages to the corporate model, but (like the old chestnut from Thomas Paine's writings), it has the advantage of simple ownership.