3 ms·

First, they are anecdotal. There is no inherent evil in anecdotes. This is obviously fiction and was not intended to be used as evidence. If it were, then you

by sofal 17y ago

First, they are anecdotal. There is no inherent evil in anecdotes. This is obviously fiction and was not intended to be used as evidence. If it were, then you would have a reasonable complaint. The purpose of a little story like this is (from Wikipedia): "to reveal a truth more general than the brief tale itself, or to delineate a character trait or the workings of an institution in such a light that it strikes in a flash of insight to their very essence." Second, why are the programmers not taking control of management positions if they know so much better? I see this asked a lot and I don't understand why. First of all, the traits (not skills, but traits) or interests needed for taking control of management positions are different (vastly different depending on the company) than the traits/interests needed to be a good developer. Second, don't forget that our fictional hero Charles eventually quit the company and presumably found a better place. Finding a place that fits you more is sometimes better than trying to change yourself to fit the management mold in a particular company. I think Alan created the best product for the company. Did you read the same story I did, or are you rewriting it into your own parable? Now imagine how good Charles would be if he could learn to cooperate and participate in a group like Alan's. That would be good I think. Let's also imagine how good Alan could be if he could learn to see past the inflated corporate policies, procedures, and checklists and focus on the crux of the problem.

motoko 17y ago
Let's also imagine many Alans (corporate engineers) and Charles (hackers) and from this bigger sample, measure how consistently each approach produces an acceptable outcome. It may be that the Charles, on average, produce better solutions with less resources than the Alans, but that individually, more of the Charles projects fail catastrophically. Now imagine how good Charles would be if he could learn to cooperate and participate in a group like Alan's. Let's also imagine how good Alan could be if he could learn to see past the inflated corporate policies, procedures, and checklists and focus on the crux of the problem. Both excellent, I think. But further, let's imagine an organization that arbitrates the risk of each Charles by simultaniously working many cheap, risky Charles on the same problem and managing the results with an Alan-like process. If the Charles are software startups and the Alan-like process is "the Internet," this could work.

by sofal 17y ago

motoko 17y ago

Let's also imagine many Alans (corporate engineers) and Charles (hackers) and from this bigger sample, measure how consistently each approach produces an acceptable outcome. It may be that the Charles, on average, produce better solutions with less resources than the Alans, but that individually, more of the Charles projects fail catastrophically. Now imagine how good Charles would be if he could learn to cooperate and participate in a group like Alan's. Let's also imagine how good Alan could be if he could learn to see past the inflated corporate policies, procedures, and checklists and focus on the crux of the problem. Both excellent, I think. But further, let's imagine an organization that arbitrates the risk of each Charles by simultaniously working many cheap, risky Charles on the same problem and managing the results with an Alan-like process. If the Charles are software startups and the Alan-like process is "the Internet," this could work.