back to article So many paths to Nirvana

We've groused repeatedly about the gaps in the software development lifecycle, or more specifically, that communication and coordination have been haphazard at best when it comes to developing software. Aside from the usual excuses of budgets, time schedules, or politics, the crux of the problem is not only the crevice that …


This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

creativity wins everytime

Just a quick comment..

The more sausage-factory-like you make a development environment, the less likely you are to get truely creative developers working for you.

I've turned down a job at adobe after looking in a little more depth at how much of an individually meaningless brick I would become in an ever increasingly sized wall.

Not for me. I, like many people crave the creativity of developer roles. Whilst the non-standardness maybe be a problem for some employers, it is the flexible approach of start-ups where the job satisfaction really is.

I also note that there is no excuse for shoddy workmanship, from people in my role, or any other. If im working on something that has to be secure or conform to any set of rules, then I will make sure it gets done, or highlight any problems well in advance as clearly as I possibly can. I won't rip you off because I'm proud of my work, but if you treat me like an interchangable component then I am more likely to behave like one (eg., less loyalty to employer).

Developers are not all cowboys, but neither do many of them want to be merely making sausages in the factory line.

Start-ups is where the job satisfaction is at, and where the creation happens, and the rules are more lax. And I like it that way.

Anyone else?

(Sorry if this isnt entirely relevant to the whole article)


Puff Piece

I'd venture to say that most software nowadays is written by teams of 10 or fewer developers. The world described by the article is a world of the distant (in internet time anyway) past. There aren't separate architects, coders, and testers anymore for most projects.

Enterprise Lifecycle Management tools are chasing after a lost era, looking for that big "enterprise" sale that justifies their small direct sales force. Enterprise == high cost per seat by the way, so if you see this keyword in an advertisement, just walk on by if you don't have very deep pockets. Maybe Borland will try to change the economics of ALM. I haven't priced their kit.

On the other hand, there are architectural, developmental, and testing activities. If anyone would size and price lifecycle management tools for small projects and teams, they'd find a market.

Silver badge

Start Ups Rule..... with NeuReal Future IDer?!.

"Anyone else?"

Yes, Jesus Puncher, I concur, as would logically/prelogically anyone thinking differently/laterally/artificially..... which may be nothing more complicated than realising there are no answers but always just questions to further answer with Global Operating Devices.

Spookily enough, It is always the Purveyor of Fine Words in a Viable Imagination which Leads and you would never necessarily know Originating Source.

But paradoxically, such cures are always seen as threats by the Establishment and as for funding streams from them, for them, well ....... that's an interesting cat and mouse game testing their strengths and exposing their weaknesses.

Nowadays, of course, XPosing weaknesses is de Rigeur.

This topic is closed for new posts.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017