Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Liutauras Vilda wrote:Bear in mind that everyone who is contributing to this community in one or another way is a volunteer, it is not a standard profit organization, where you can draw the line next to the highest industry standards as you would for a commercial product.
That's true; but IMO, it's no excuse for "shoddiness".
Winston Gutkowski wrote:Some of the best code - and products (even if we take some of them for granted) - have come out of the open-source, not-for-profit, and "volunteer" communities - including Java itself. One only has to look at protocols like ssh and ftp - and of course www (or http) - to discover a whole layer of infrastructure that has been given to us by "volunteers", or non-profit organisations.
Winston Gutkowski wrote:I'm sticking with my cow; because this has been a good thread.
Brian Tkatch wrote:[By definition, it is an excuse. You just don't think it is a good one. I think it is an excellent one.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Brian Tkatch wrote:Furthermore, those products have no visible UI, which is exactly what is being talked about here.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Brian Tkatch wrote:By definition, it is an excuse. You just don't think it is a good one. I think it is an excellent one.
Why? Are not-for-profit programmers governed by different rules to the rest of us? Or are we, as "professionals" governed by different rules when we don't get paid?
Winston Gutkowski wrote:Software is either good or bad;
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Brian Tkatch wrote:Furthermore, those products have no visible UI, which is exactly what is being talked about here.
There I will concede, but being a complete duffer when it comes to "UIs" I have little to contribute to (our) improvement, so I hope you'll understand that I tackled the other part of the criticism.
Brian Tkatch wrote:I can think of 3 reasons (off-hand) why "professionals" are better, regardless of the definition (mostly) or if it is even true as applied:
Professionals tend to work in the field more often, hence they appreciate and have an in-depth understanding/feeling for look and feel. Simply dealing with a subject long enough causes the brain to condition itself to it, and thus, are likely to do a better job. Professionals, work with others in the field, have had feedback, and have a reputation to upkeep and defend. As such, they are more likely to have a well-rounded, best-fitting solution, that has been tested and tried in the field. Professionals are usually a larger group than non-professionals (for any given area), they have usually been cherry-picked from a larger group, making them the crème de la crème
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Brian Tkatch wrote:
That's ridiculous.Winston Gutkowski wrote:Software is either good or bad...
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote:First: we haven't even defined what a "professional" is; so my presumption is that you are referring simply to people who are employed as programmers, regardless of aptitude or any idea of "conscience".
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs. |