Motivation of software professionals
in [Java Programming]
|
From: Seebs on 13 Feb 2010 16:18 On 2010-02-13, Arved Sandstrom <dcest61(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > *In theory* you can read the source. However, not many professional > developers actually have the time to assess open source code quality by > doing code inspections. I myself tend to go with reviews, previous > experience of software by the same people, experience of older versions > of the same program, and the provided documentation. I do too, but the moment I have to look at something, I can start evaluating it. I pitched a several-week project to management on the basis that I'd read the code of a component we were using, and concluded from quality issues where the code worked but wasn't pretty that it would not be worth it to try to fix the cases where it didn't work. > And I've used a number of programs for which the source was available > where problems caused us to dive into the code. The code passed visual > inspection, no problem...but it still had defects. Oh, sure. Nearly all code still has defects. The questions that are more interesting are how easy it will be to work on the code, or how likely it will be that fixing one defect will reveal others. -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: Lew on 13 Feb 2010 17:00 Mike Schilling wrote: > Lew wrote: >> There should be a much wider gap between the pay scale of the good >> developer and that of the putz or newbie. > ---- > > I do not think that words means what you think it means. ??? It means precisely what I think it means, going by the first two definitions in <http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=putz> What do /you/ think it means? -- Lew
From: Joe Wright on 13 Feb 2010 17:52 Lew wrote: > Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> Let's take it as a given that free software has a decent model. I've >> been, and still am, a participant in the process of creating free >> software, and I wouldn't do that if it wasn't a good model. However, >> the main problem with it is that it engages only a small fraction of >> all software developers, and accounts for only a very small fraction >> of all software that is written. > > Only a small fraction of software developers (and I've known for a long > time you were in that group) are good enough to write good software, > free or otherwise. > > Most of us do need to get paid, and few of us can make more money than > as software developers or related jobs. That gives those who are good > developers little time to spare for writing free software. > >> But the real problem, which is not addressed by free software, and >> which comprises the huge majority of all software, is custom stuff. >> And it is this category that suffers, and suffers badly, from the lack >> of professionalism in our field. It is this category where clients >> would benefit from having proven, guaranteed quantities when it comes >> to employees/contractors and products. > > There should be a much wider gap between the pay scale of the good > developer and that of the putz or newbie. Something akin to the gap > between top actors and those who have to wait tables, or top pro > athletes and those in the minor leagues. > Linus Torvalds writes free software. He is handsomely compensated. I understand that Richard Stallman is not destitute either. Hmmm. -- Joe Wright "If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."
From: Lew on 13 Feb 2010 18:31 >>> (n) a stupid, ignorant person; >>> someone who doesn't pay attention to anything going on; >>> one who makes stupid remarks Mike Schilling wrote: > That's where I'd say schmuck instead of putz, > but there's unfortunately no > YLS to referee that dispute. Understand that Yiddish has spread into the American idiom, and many words have grown beyond their historic usages. -- Lew
From: Mike Schilling on 13 Feb 2010 18:37
Lew wrote: >>>> (n) a stupid, ignorant person; >>>> someone who doesn't pay attention to anything going on; >>>> one who makes stupid remarks > > Mike Schilling wrote: >> That's where I'd say schmuck instead of putz, >> but there's unfortunately no >> YLS to referee that dispute. > > Understand that Yiddish has spread into the American idiom, and many > words have grown beyond their historic usages. Sure, Americans have goyisher kopfs. |