3 ms·
"corporate standards" are at least partially good. They should be reasonable though and adaptive to the times. Having a set of acceptable programming languages,
by ppierald 14y ago
"corporate standards" are at least partially good. They should be reasonable though and adaptive to the times. Having a set of acceptable programming languages, frameworks, etc. ensures that the company understands the risks of those choices, can apply reasonable upgrade/maintenance/security patches as needed, can attract and retain personnel that understand the language, etc. Allowing arbitrary choice leads to complete anarchy. The opposite is also at least as bad. Having one rigid language/framework leads to obsolescence and inflexibility. A good programmer will be able to make a strong case as to why this new language/platform is vastly superior to the current one because changing to the new one and supporting the old one are not zero-cost propositions.
- Hermitian 14y agoWhy not just create an environment that suits the company and its management. The programmer can decide whether that environment is best suited for them. Some people prefer rigidity. I don't understand their preference, but I respect that it is their preference. But it's hard to say that arbitrary choice always leads to anarchy or the one rigid framework always leads to inflexibility. Everything varies. That's the beauty of people - we are all different, yet we coexists.