3 ms·

For some reason, the term "craftsman" has come to mean "obsessed with quality" in programming circles. I'd just like to point out that most traditional crafts (

by WJW 5y ago

For some reason, the term "craftsman" has come to mean "obsessed with quality" in programming circles. I'd just like to point out that most traditional crafts (ie tailors, carpenters, metalworkers, etc) both today and in the past are absolutely not obsessed with making heirloom quality stuff all of the time. As long as the customer is happy and they get a competitive price for their time, they will be happy to take your project on. Also as any historian will tell you there was a LOT of shitty quality stuff produced back in the day as well. It's just that nobody bothers to keep a wooden cabinet or a woolen greatcoat for multiple centuries unless it is absolutely magnificent. You can still get great quality bespoke furniture/clothing/etc today btw, but don't expect IKEA prices.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
I'm not necessarily "obsessed" with Quality, but I have learned that Quality today, means less time spent, scooping up kitty litter, tomorrow. I also worked for a corporation (Japanese) that is pretty much synonymous with "Quality." It was a religion, there. In most American companies, the running joke has always been, that if you have "Quality" in your job title, your career is over. At this company, it meant that you were a high priest.
- salawat 5y ago
  In most American companies, having "Quality" in your title means you're never thanked, it was never your idea despite being mentioned and repeatedly shot down 9+ months ago, you're either tolerated or downright feared, and fenerally you can target no shortage of intrigue in the enterprise, but no one wants to acknowledge it. Amusingly, my career actually started with a Quality bearing title. Maybe I should try a Japanese company one of these days. See how the real adherents of Demings-san do things.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    I suspect that a lot of the other cultural shenanigans would drive you nuts. For example, we used to joke about "The Japanese 'Yes.'" This was where we would patiently explain how some command/policy/idea would not work, and the person that we would explain it to, would understand perfectly, and say "Yes, you are correct." Then, they would instruct us to do it, anyway, because some higher-up said "Make it so," it was in the project plan, or it was corporate policy.
    - salawat 5y ago
      ...This may sadly be a refreshing change in my book. I think I might be able to handle face saving and climbing the ladder and being repetitive about it. I've honestly gotten kind of used to that. I'm much more tolerant of the straightforward "Yes, because..." than the American "but I can't". One is still potentially a productive conversation, the other is a platitude, and exhausting. I will take that into advisement however.
      - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
        Sort of like this? https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-06-02 https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-06-02
pjlegato 5y ago
Yes, and worth emphasizing: this "surviorship bias" phenomenon is common in comparisons of the present to the past. People imagine quality was higher, standards were higher long ago.. they weren't. We just don't retain the vast majority of low quality stuff for centuries, we only retain the top 1% or 0.001%, while the low quality stuff is forgotten. Analogously, people sometimes ask why the average perceived quality of classical music written in 1810 or so is so much higher than the quality of music being written today. Well, the real average quality of 1810 music wasn't higher; we just don't bother performing or listening to the bottom 99% of music written in 1810 that was not very good. We only listen to Beethoven and a few others who were at the very top. This creates the inaccurate perception that "most music was really great in 1810, much better than today; standards have slipped and nobody cares about quality music now."

by WJW 5y ago

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

I'm not necessarily "obsessed" with Quality, but I have learned that Quality today, means less time spent, scooping up kitty litter, tomorrow. I also worked for a corporation (Japanese) that is pretty much synonymous with "Quality." It was a religion, there. In most American companies, the running joke has always been, that if you have "Quality" in your job title, your career is over. At this company, it meant that you were a high priest.

salawat 5y ago
In most American companies, having "Quality" in your title means you're never thanked, it was never your idea despite being mentioned and repeatedly shot down 9+ months ago, you're either tolerated or downright feared, and fenerally you can target no shortage of intrigue in the enterprise, but no one wants to acknowledge it. Amusingly, my career actually started with a Quality bearing title. Maybe I should try a Japanese company one of these days. See how the real adherents of Demings-san do things.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  I suspect that a lot of the other cultural shenanigans would drive you nuts. For example, we used to joke about "The Japanese 'Yes.'" This was where we would patiently explain how some command/policy/idea would not work, and the person that we would explain it to, would understand perfectly, and say "Yes, you are correct." Then, they would instruct us to do it, anyway, because some higher-up said "Make it so," it was in the project plan, or it was corporate policy.
  - salawat 5y ago
    ...This may sadly be a refreshing change in my book. I think I might be able to handle face saving and climbing the ladder and being repetitive about it. I've honestly gotten kind of used to that. I'm much more tolerant of the straightforward "Yes, because..." than the American "but I can't". One is still potentially a productive conversation, the other is a platitude, and exhausting. I will take that into advisement however.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
      Sort of like this? https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-06-02 https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-06-02

pjlegato 5y ago

Yes, and worth emphasizing: this "surviorship bias" phenomenon is common in comparisons of the present to the past. People imagine quality was higher, standards were higher long ago.. they weren't. We just don't retain the vast majority of low quality stuff for centuries, we only retain the top 1% or 0.001%, while the low quality stuff is forgotten. Analogously, people sometimes ask why the average perceived quality of classical music written in 1810 or so is so much higher than the quality of music being written today. Well, the real average quality of 1810 music wasn't higher; we just don't bother performing or listening to the bottom 99% of music written in 1810 that was not very good. We only listen to Beethoven and a few others who were at the very top. This creates the inaccurate perception that "most music was really great in 1810, much better than today; standards have slipped and nobody cares about quality music now."