4 ms·

> you can get a new programmer who has had a 2 year degree in programming and 6 months of training on the specific technology up to speed in such a project in a

• roel_v 15y ago
  Sure, but it works well enough for many organizations. Very seldom is there a business case to be made for a beautifully architected, extensible, maintainable, useable (with useability testing etc) expense tracking application. Throw something together that works well enough to produce the output required and is integrated with other systems, write a 10-page manual that explains the input formats (because sane input checking and error reporting is for pussies - just display 'data input error' when the user enters a date as dd-mm-yy instead of dd-mm-yyyy), write a 'policy' that people only can get paid expenses if they use the application and voila, you're done. And when you need changes in 3 years time - hire a contractor on fixed fee, who cares that he will age 10 years in 10 days time; he'll move on to the next pile of crap soon anyway.
  • roc 15y ago
    > "Sure, but it works well enough for many organizations." Which is to say: organizations derive such fantastic value from software, that even slow, buggy, late and over-budget projects, nor a parade of such projects, is enough to cause them to reconsider their approach. Which is the answer to the original question. Q: If software delivers so much value, why are programmers typically paid so little and treated so poorly? A: Because even bad software delivers value far faster than most organizations can incorporate it and there's no shortage of bad programmers.