Motivation of software professionals
in [Java Programming]
|
From: James Kanze on 8 Feb 2010 18:42 On Feb 8, 4:14 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 1:43 am, James Kanze <james.ka...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 5, 3:14 pm, Patricia Shanahan <p...(a)acm.org> wrote: > > [...] > > > That said, by definition professionals are, to some > > > extent, in it for the money. If they were not, they would > > > be amateurs as I am now. How that is balanced against > > > interesting work, physical working conditions, status, > > > etc. varies. > > I'm not sure if the word "professional" has the same > > conotations in English as it does in French, but from the > > French meaning, I don't think you can be truely a > > "professional" if you're only in it for the money. > > "Professional" implies being paid for what you do, but it > > also implies a certain degree of personal standards with > > regards to quality and such---a "professional" will take > > pride in his work. > Strictly a "professional" is someone who is a member of a > professional body which regulates itself and has the right to > control entry to the profession. For instnace I can't simply > buy scalpels and antiseptic and set myself up as a brain > surgeon - I have to go throguh the British Medical Association > before they'll let me chop people up. the same is true for > lawyers, accountants, and some other more obscure niches. Words have many meanings, and some professions are "reglementé". Still, in France, I was a "profession libérale", and not a "commerçant" or "artisan"---in Germany, the categorie was "freiberuflich", rather than "Gewerber". These are very distinct legal categories, with (especially in Germany) implications with regards to how I was taxed, etc. (And it did lead to some interesting situations in France, since typically, as a "profession libérale", I was asked for my registration with the professional association. Which didn't exist for my profession.) -- James Kanze
From: Phil Carmody on 8 Feb 2010 18:44 Ivan Marsh <ivanmarsh(a)yahoo.com> writes: > Lew wrote: >> Ivan Marsh wrote: >>> The 1950's [sic] were totally awesome. >> >> Oh, yeah - the twin evils of McCarthyism and Communism. Racism. Sexism. >> The >> Cold War. Superpowers playing chess with smaller countries. Wars >> everywhere. >> Dictators. Massive stockpiling of nuclear and chemical weapons. Rapine >> of >> the planet. The birth of AIDS. Hideous fashions. >> >> Totally awesome. > > The complete lack of sarcasm... No, I think you'll find that Tom Lehrer was quite active in those days. Phil -- Any true emperor never needs to wear clothes. -- Devany on r.a.s.f1
From: Seebs on 8 Feb 2010 18:50 On 2010-02-08, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Seebs wrote: >> On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >>> That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering >>> society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of >>> town if they call themselves one. >> This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which >> would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless >> of any labels. > Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real > standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title > "Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have > nothing like this at all, I see no problem here. Membership in an organization is not the same thing as meeting the formal standards that would be required by such an organization if it existed. In short, if there exists a set of qualifications and conduct which would be necessary to be a member of an organization, and membership confers the title "engineer", then having that set of qualifications and conduct ought to confer the title *with or without* membership in the organization. Meanwhile, at least some members of any given organization will usually not actually meet the nominal or formalized standard in one way or another. Measurement by proxy is not very good measurement. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Arved Sandstrom on 8 Feb 2010 19:01 Seebs wrote: > On 2010-02-08, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> Seebs wrote: >>> On 2010-02-08, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: >>>> That's easy: anybody who isn't a member of a recognised engineering >>>> society should not be called an engineer and should be laughed out of >>>> town if they call themselves one. > >>> This strikes me as the polar opposite of an engineering mindset, which >>> would be that a thing is what it is, and isn't what it isn't, regardless >>> of any labels. > >> Insofar as competent and professional engineering societies set real >> standards for qualifications and conduct to be able to use the title >> "Engineer", and insofar as the vast majority of software developers have >> nothing like this at all, I see no problem here. > > Membership in an organization is not the same thing as meeting the formal > standards that would be required by such an organization if it existed. > > In short, if there exists a set of qualifications and conduct which would > be necessary to be a member of an organization, and membership confers the > title "engineer", then having that set of qualifications and conduct ought > to confer the title *with or without* membership in the organization. > Meanwhile, at least some members of any given organization will usually > not actually meet the nominal or formalized standard in one way or another. At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software developers. So it's pretty much a moot point. If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a certification process? [ SNIP ] AHS
From: Seebs on 8 Feb 2010 21:24
On 2010-02-09, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > At the moment those standards do not exist for the majority of software > developers. So it's pretty much a moot point. I am not convinced that they don't; formalization is not existance. > If the standards did exist, how would you know that a person who claimed > a title actually deserved it, without having them go through a > certification process? How would you know if there WERE a certification process? Answer: You wouldn't. It's not as though no one's ever tried it. We have a number of certification processes. They consistently work, if what you want is to know that someone once managed to memorize a bunch of stuff for a test. I have seen nothing to suggest that any other field's "certification processes" are actually substantially better than this. Certainly, they are extremely popular, especially among people who have already obtained those certifications. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! |