3 ms·

Yeah by your definition i would be a liberal. I can see good reasons for every position on Steve Yegge's spectrum. But i have a way harder time seeing a good r

• btilly 14y ago
  Read http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff and get back to me on whether there are valid reasons for someone to be a software conservative by my definition. To me your response justifies the way I look at the world. The whole point of seeing things as "software politics" is to try to divide developers up into groups who each thinks that they are so obviously right that no justification is needed, and think that the others are so obviously wrong that you don't even know where you'd begin a discussion. And once you know what pressure point divides them, then you can actually try to start a productive discussion. Speaking personally, I would die in an organization like that. I can look at it, see what's at stake, can accept that they are doing the right thing for their problem. But I am very glad that I can find things to do where the cost of smoking out the very last bug in my software is not as important as the profit from making the next thing that I'm going to make.
  • ema 14y ago
    When human lives or expensive equipment are at stake then it makes sense to be software conservative by your definition. But for these kinds of requirements Java is way to lenient.