|
The trouble with "methodologies" is that, sometimes, they fit the job at hand and the instigator/author gets all excited and writes a book about how well it all went and we should follow along and do the same thing, etc, ad infinitum blah, blah, blah.
The problem, of course, with this is that no 2 businesses are the same. No 2 groups of people are the same. And therein lies the rub. All processes, no matter how well orchestrated, are people driven. And people, for the most part, act like mindless cats and are impossible to herd in any meaningful way.
So, for me and me alone, the best approach has been to hire really smart people and let them get on with it. And they still all have personalities and characters and great ideas that tear down the "methodologies" and show them up for what they really are: a one size fits all problems that ends up being the problem.
Yeah, I like the notion of agile but I'm damned if I'll follow along slavishly. That is dumb.
Anyway, do what you want - people always do anyway.
ps I am also gaining age - it's been and is being a fun run.
Never let the bastards grind you down is the only pattern that really works for me.
Have a nice weekend, cats.
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience the problem is mostly just programmers who can't write decent software.
I've heard programmers say "software architecture isn't going to work for us, that's only nice in theory."
So no UI, business and data layers, no abstractions, no nothing.
No matter your software ideology, that's going to end bad (they were lucky that the software didn't change all that much).
Then I've seen software with a gazillion useless layers, just as bad.
Or software that took a non-DI library and used it as DI (the result was a very awkward method to instantiate objects when you need them, and no DI of course).
A completely wrong implementation of an ORM and the programmers who made the mess cursing the ORM (the problem really wasn't the ORM)...
Or a "core" library that every application depended on, but which changed almost daily.
These are programmers of all ages, not just the old farts.
No matter how clear or vague the business requirements are or how well your business structure is or how good the tools are you use, such software never ends well.
Maybe we should just learn to write software properly first.
After that we can worry about tools and methodologies.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: the old farts.
Hey, are you talking about me again? 
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote that post with you in mind specifically 
Just kidding, I only talk about you when you're not around 
If you read between the lines I'm just saying "not only the old farts are bad programmers, it's the young people too."
Of course it takes a younger person to read between the lines
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: In my experience the problem is mostly just programmers who can't write decent software.
I have worked with some real jerks. One guy in particular found an old and odd definition of a csv file, different to Lotus and MSFT (and everyone else for that matter) and he insisted on using his version in his code. Result, it couldnt read a csv created by say excell.
And he did it just because he could argue he was 'right'.
Crazy eh? Yet his line leader and manager let him get away with it. They were scared of offending him.
I have worked with other plain incompetent engineers who dont know why a UI locks up when its thread is asked to do heavy processing. That team actually threw away an app I wrote just to write their own, and because they couldnt understand function pointers, and made a complete mess of it.
One of the main reasons is fear of the new, the unknown. It is surprising how many SW engineers once they know something, cling to it, desperately. How unadaptable they are to new ways of thinking, and how attached to their code they are, as if it is their flesh and blood.
All of this makes for a very bad engineer.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Crazy eh? Yet his line leader and manager let him get away with it. They were scared of offending him.
I've worked with people like that.
The problem was that the really bad programmer pretty much build the system single handed and he was the only one who really knew what was going on.
He got mad and stressed when he saw something he didn't understand, like lambda's in any other setting than LINQ 
And in the Netherlands it's quite difficult and/or expensive to fire anyone, so that's not really an option as long as he delivers something.
Munchies_Matt wrote: It is surprising how many SW engineers once they know something, cling to it, desperately. How unadaptable they are to new ways of thinking, and how attached to their code they are, as if it is their flesh and blood.
They sound just like people
The scary part is that this type of behavior is pretty much the default human configuration.
Doctors, lawyers, politicians... They all share those same traits 
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, As Jung called it, 'To have or to Be'. Very good book about human psychology. (At least I think it was Jung...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F
Nope, its Erich Fromm. Bloody good read actually, it discusses for example intelligence. Is it a set of known, possessed facts, or is it a process, an ability to learn new facts? Too often we see it as the former, and act that way, but really, it is the later. And the more act that way the better we are in our work.
|
|
|
|
|
Doctors, lawyers, politicians, plumbers, mechanics, BOSSES, etc.....When I was young I had this notion that people were generally competant, say, 99% of the time. Now that I have seen what there is to see, my estimate is less than 50% are competant and almost none should be completely trusted.
|
|
|
|
|
Some people would call that pessimism.
I call that experience and wisdom 
|
|
|
|
|
That is interesting dichotomy i our software world.
Some just run for shiny new frameworks, some dig trenches around their favourite tools.
Maybe there are situations where someone sticks to some tools but in other he looks for new.
Fun part is both taken to extreme make bad developers.
|
|
|
|
|
Mateusz Jakub wrote: Some just run for shiny new frameworks, some dig trenches around their favourite tools.
Very accurate observation.
|
|
|
|
|
The place I work at uses the same one size fits all thinking (granted it works well for one the original), never stops to think, hey looks like we're working on a different application and different requirements. All that matters is to use the same shoe everywhere (they're kind of proud of it too). The thing is it is team lead's decision to make everyone put on the same shoe everywhere. I would like to argue but I've gone to a phase where I just don't give a sh*t and I have started looking for a new job opportunity.
Munchies_Matt: he did it just because he could argue he was 'right'.
Same thing happens with the guy I work with, occasionally he'd come up with these great ideas and would never stop bragging, but most of the time he is just arguing for his shoe which doesn't fit very well, but wins the fight almost every time because the guy can argue. Sometimes I'd be able to convince him if I find a not so critical flaw. If however there's only a critical one he'd simply shake his head say "You don't understand it", and come up with a contradictory argument to say otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Agree. It truly is amazing how many people with no real aptitude for programming choose it as a career. Then again, without them, I'd have a lot fewer contracts cleaning up their messes. So...for me, not sure if bad programmers are a good thing or a bad thing 
|
|
|
|
|
Your current contracts are about cleaning up a mess, not your favorite pastime I think.
Without those bad programmers your contracts would be about building cool new functionality in well-built systems that are ready for the next level.
Functionality that's not possible or too expensive in the current software because it's such a mess.
At least that's what I like to think
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another victim of the broken window fallacy
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I was unfamiliar with that one. I like the analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
Fir point although I don;t think our collective gripes are about software, per se, rather the gift wrapping it all seems to come with now mostly forced upon people by gullible managers. Still, each to their own.
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Lynch wrote: Ranting wasn't as much fun as I hoped. I tried it. I don't think its the thing for me after all.
Your rant is too verbose, lacking insults, too intellectual, and not sufficiently emotive. Here's a rewrite:
Software methodologies implies people have the intelligence to actually come up with logical methods. Instead management creates arbitrary rules in knee jerk reactions resulting in arbitrary software ideologies that we become mindless slaves to, genuflecting to the process god hoisted onto his throne, only to be cast into oblivion and replaced by a new god by the next manager and his particular psychosis.
OK, still too intellectual, probably still too verbose.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, what you said
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: still too intellectual, probably still too verbose.
![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) software methodologies!
Neither intellectual nor verbose.
Can anyone beat my record of three words?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking as a master ranter!
Don't get me wrong, I look forward to reading your rants.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
From my 20+years of IT/software work the methodologies used don't appear to have had a huge impact on the outcome.
The one thing that has determined the success/failure of projects I have worked on has been the quality of communication between people in the team.
Where there has been a culture of people not talking to each other or screaming and swearing/threatening each other the outcome has generally been fairly poor.
Whereas when the has been a more friendly and supportive/mentoring culture the outcome of projects has generally always been one of success.
So my experience tells me that it's not necessarily the methodology that counts but the quality of communication between people in a team/business.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I've been fortunate to have a couple of good technical managers over the decades...they're almost as much of a rarity as unicorns. Instead of enforcing policy, the better managers protected the team from politics, helped establish a direction when there were competing visions within the team, and just generally made sure we had the resources we needed to complete the work. Those were fun jobs and unsurprisingly those teams were very productive.
So, my experience, you simply put together a few talented engineers with a supportive manager and great things happen. Hmmm...that seems like an easy formula...maybe I should jot down a few guidelines, add a few rules, and write a book...what could go wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: The one thing that has determined the success/failure of projects I have worked on has been the quality of communication between people in the team.
It's interesting you mention that. I say that because have you heard what one of the guys that came up with agile wanted to call it instead of agile? Conversational development, IE the way you do anything is to have a conversation between the involved individuals. Of course it also has to be stated that you can't have a conversation if one side doesn't respect the other, in that case you generally end up with a lecture. Unfortunately with a name like "Agile" plus all that dogma in the manifesto the core idea which you've hit upon gets lost doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
