43 ms·

LOL. A broke craftsman ain't no craftsman, he's just an unemployed dude posturing as the real deal. I know plenty of real craftsmen, and none of them waste time

by roel_v 15y ago

LOL. A broke craftsman ain't no craftsman, he's just an unemployed dude posturing as the real deal. I know plenty of real craftsmen, and none of them waste time bickering on the 'right' shape of chisel or optimal mix of cement and sand, they all judge their peers on the results they produce.

damncabbage 15y ago
they all judge their peers on the results they produce. There's a little bit of a mismatch here: * Posters above are arguing that the end result that programmers are judged upon is revenue. * You're arguing that the end result that craftsmen are judged upon is quality. If a plumber is doing a terrible job but is doing well business-wise, I'd expect other plumbers to not look upon them so favourably
- shingen 15y ago
  I really don't think the issue is judging something based on revenue at all. There are numerous ways to measure the success of a product. It depends on what it is meant to accomplish. The real point is: it does not matter what tools you use, so long as you are able to reach success (in any number of ways a person may choose to define it). You can obviously argue about which tools will best get you there, or give you the best chance to succeed. I've seen plenty of entrepreneurs or developers, use a tool 85% good enough, to hit a homerun. It's little different than a good plan executed today being better than a perfect plan tomorrow. I believe there are exceptionally few cases in life or business where the '85% good enough' won't do the job. I've yet to see the 100% perfection set actually exist anyway.
aGHz 15y ago
It's true that the ultimate judgement comes on the result, but a lot of the arguments around tools have an element of "this allows you to give better results". I've witnessed very long discussions with my photography and cinema friends about the varieties of cameras and other tools they like to use, so I doubt the validity of your statement. I do have to agree that it sounds a lot more intelligent and a lot less like the language bickering we're seeing. The reason for that brings me back to my original point that there are too many people jumping in the language debates who really have no business being there. It's the equivalent of me trolling my photography friends saying that Sony makes amazing cameras because when I go on vacation I can just whip one out and take a decent shot, whereas the girl who didn't have her 4000$ SLR with her totally missed out on the opportunity. While 100% true, I'm really just derailing their conversation on the relative benefits of their cameras with something completely besides the point.

by roel_v 15y ago

damncabbage 15y ago

they all judge their peers on the results they produce. There's a little bit of a mismatch here: * Posters above are arguing that the end result that programmers are judged upon is revenue. * You're arguing that the end result that craftsmen are judged upon is quality. If a plumber is doing a terrible job but is doing well business-wise, I'd expect other plumbers to not look upon them so favourably

shingen 15y ago
I really don't think the issue is judging something based on revenue at all. There are numerous ways to measure the success of a product. It depends on what it is meant to accomplish. The real point is: it does not matter what tools you use, so long as you are able to reach success (in any number of ways a person may choose to define it). You can obviously argue about which tools will best get you there, or give you the best chance to succeed. I've seen plenty of entrepreneurs or developers, use a tool 85% good enough, to hit a homerun. It's little different than a good plan executed today being better than a perfect plan tomorrow. I believe there are exceptionally few cases in life or business where the '85% good enough' won't do the job. I've yet to see the 100% perfection set actually exist anyway.

aGHz 15y ago

It's true that the ultimate judgement comes on the result, but a lot of the arguments around tools have an element of "this allows you to give better results". I've witnessed very long discussions with my photography and cinema friends about the varieties of cameras and other tools they like to use, so I doubt the validity of your statement. I do have to agree that it sounds a lot more intelligent and a lot less like the language bickering we're seeing. The reason for that brings me back to my original point that there are too many people jumping in the language debates who really have no business being there. It's the equivalent of me trolling my photography friends saying that Sony makes amazing cameras because when I go on vacation I can just whip one out and take a decent shot, whereas the girl who didn't have her 4000$ SLR with her totally missed out on the opportunity. While 100% true, I'm really just derailing their conversation on the relative benefits of their cameras with something completely besides the point.