Why should I bother?
-
Reminds me of a big company that called me about a network issue and wanted me to come to their office. I went to the office and the receptionist said I couldn't go in, since I wasn't wearing a tie. So I left. A few hours later I got a call asking why I didb't show up, so I explained about the receptionist and made an appointment for the next day and explained, if I make two trips and have to wear an uncomfortable tie, my rate is double."Perhaps you can find someone with a tie a lot cheaper, but I was under the impression that you needed a problem solved, not a tie. So I went back, wearing a tie with my tee shirt and shorts, fixed the problem and billed for two trips and time at double my normalrate CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
Why did you care to put on that tee shirt? :-) It reminds me: In my student days, my University bought an IBM mainframe. At least back in those days, IBM service people were always 'properly dressed', white shirt and tie. At the same time, they were supposed to appear at the level of the customer. So at the University, IBM service people were observed wearing jeans, ironed, to show sharp creases. :-)
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
-
Why did you care to put on that tee shirt? :-) It reminds me: In my student days, my University bought an IBM mainframe. At least back in those days, IBM service people were always 'properly dressed', white shirt and tie. At the same time, they were supposed to appear at the level of the customer. So at the University, IBM service people were observed wearing jeans, ironed, to show sharp creases. :-)
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
trønderen wrote:
'properly dressed', white shirt and tie.
If I'm told there's some sort of dress code, I always ask at what time the Queen of England is scheduled to arrive, so I can plan to be done and long gone by then. If that's a problem, I'm okay telling these people this is not the place for me. I've never had a job where I was hired to make a fashion statement. I'm holding back even less the older I get. I have no time for such BS.
-
I spend a lot of time trying to get my code right. Sure, I'm not immune to bugs. Could I be better about methodically testing? Absolutely, especially since I hate that part, but I think for the most part I do a pretty good job. I just spent awhile tracking down all kinds of little issues to get my SVGs rendering pixel perfect. They now look better than the reference implementation I've been using. Meanwhile, Microsoft's mail client dies inside about every other time my computer suspends itself. Their windows task bar gets confused and starts stacking task icons almost completely on top of each other, etc. If big companies like MS are pushing user expectations downward in terms of software quality, it makes me wonder. Other than integrity and self respect, why do I care if my code works, if Microsoft doesn't? If IBM doesn't? If Oracle doesn't? You know?
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
honey the codewitch wrote:
If big companies like MS are pushing user expectations downward in terms of software quality, it makes me wonder.
Versus who? Versus when?
honey the codewitch wrote:
why do I care if my code works, if Microsoft doesn't?
One reason for that is that companies like that exist to make money. Not code. And in the modern era that is even stressed more as there are more measurable factors that one can see to know if a company is making money. Not to mention growth, return on investment, etc. Just because a developer wants to eliminate a single error that occurs in one million successful transactions it doesn't mean it is cost effective (money) to allow them to spend 2 weeks or 6 months to do so.
-
Because the Management of those big companies are too busy focusing on "Maximizing Share Holder Value" and have lost sight of the real software business that got them to where they are today. I believe that there are tens of thousands of frustrated, really talented technical people who feel trapped by the toxic environments that they are forced to work in, in those overly big companies. Projects cut to pieces in the quest for unreasonable deadlines and dispersed among teams that have no contact with each other (except via problem recording/resolution tracking software, where posting too many problems dams the career of the poster). Take Microsoft's latest disaster. They have pre-sold OEMs on building hardware with specialized "AI" hardware because Microsoft was coming out with killer "AI" software. So with the OEMs (with visions of skyrocketing hardware sales dancing in their heads (hey, it's almost Christmas (lol)). Have gone ahead invested millions in the new "Co-Pilot+ PCs". Only Microsoft doesn't have any killer "AI" software. In fact, most of the "AI" software is embroiled in massive lawsuits and a lot of public confusion and hate. So they quick, push out, the "Recall" software. An 'idea' that had not been baked too long deep in the bowels of Microsoft. The "Recall" software is ridiculed for lack of security and creepy spying. Microsoft pulls back the software but they have painted themselves into a corner. They have nothing else. Their stock valuation is based on their technical prowess with "AI". They must do something to "Maximize Share Holder Value"! So they round up all the internal technical wizards that they can find and quick patch up the software to make it palatable. And a half-baked idea is going to be forced out into the public where it will definitely have bugs, definitely have security failings and for the most part is unwanted or at least poorly understood by the very public they expect to buy the hardware to run the software. So do not discount "Integrity and Self-Respect" or "caring if your code works" and I might add, the vision to know that the software is useful, solves a problem and will be a strong foundation for future applications. That is what is important (In My Own Humble Opinion).
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote:
I believe that there are tens of thousands of frustrated, really talented technical people who feel trapped by the toxic environments that they are forced to work in,
History, history, history. Back in the good ol' days one started as a key puncher. After doing that a couple of years, one got to be a junior programmer. And no that is not like now where a junior programmer might get to work on real problems. Because after all when a job that an entire team is waiting on it might take an hour just to report obscure syntax errors. So manually checking code becomes something that everyone does. Character by character. Certainly leads to frustration. Not to mention of course that touchy feely was not even a thought back then. So violent explosive verbal tirades were considered, if not normal, then certainly a likelihood when mistakes were made. Then look to the environment that Steve Jobs produced between Apple and Macintosh development.
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote:
Take Microsoft's latest disaster.
Versus what? OLE? I never figured out what happened to that. What was the attempt before that? Or the original Microsoft library that was 'supposed' to be Object Oriented which wrapped the Microsoft C API and definitely was not OO. Of course there was IBM's fubar on the original contract with Microsoft over DOS. There was the DEC Alpha. Fast windows (then.) At only about $500,000 a machine. Steve Jobs the wunderkind but not so much with Next. Can't remember the name but they needed to replace the airline reservation system in the 90s or so. The failure to deliver and vast cost overruns which spawned multiple lawsuits.
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote:
and I might add, the vision to know that the software is useful, solves a problem and will be a strong foundation for future applications.
People that can predict the future should probably focus on that. Maybe do some stock investing. Otherwise don't design and certainly do not implement code based on wild guesses as to what the future might bring. Rathe deliver something based on what is known.
-
I spend a lot of time trying to get my code right. Sure, I'm not immune to bugs. Could I be better about methodically testing? Absolutely, especially since I hate that part, but I think for the most part I do a pretty good job. I just spent awhile tracking down all kinds of little issues to get my SVGs rendering pixel perfect. They now look better than the reference implementation I've been using. Meanwhile, Microsoft's mail client dies inside about every other time my computer suspends itself. Their windows task bar gets confused and starts stacking task icons almost completely on top of each other, etc. If big companies like MS are pushing user expectations downward in terms of software quality, it makes me wonder. Other than integrity and self respect, why do I care if my code works, if Microsoft doesn't? If IBM doesn't? If Oracle doesn't? You know?
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
honey the codewitch wrote:
Their windows task bar gets confused and starts stacking task icons almost completely on top of each other, etc
Yep, mine does that. Gave up trying to fix it and just try to avoid needing to click on the taskbar... :sigh:
-
honey the codewitch wrote:
If big companies like MS are pushing user expectations downward in terms of software quality, it makes me wonder.
Versus who? Versus when?
honey the codewitch wrote:
why do I care if my code works, if Microsoft doesn't?
One reason for that is that companies like that exist to make money. Not code. And in the modern era that is even stressed more as there are more measurable factors that one can see to know if a company is making money. Not to mention growth, return on investment, etc. Just because a developer wants to eliminate a single error that occurs in one million successful transactions it doesn't mean it is cost effective (money) to allow them to spend 2 weeks or 6 months to do so.
jschell wrote:
Versus who?
How about... Microsoft?
jschell wrote:
Versus when?
Microsoft's mail client dies inside about every other time my computer suspends itself. Their windows task bar gets confused and starts stacking task icons almost completely on top of each other, etc.
Perhaps compared to when windows and outlook didn't do those things? Just for example.
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
-
Reminds me of a big company that called me about a network issue and wanted me to come to their office. I went to the office and the receptionist said I couldn't go in, since I wasn't wearing a tie. So I left. A few hours later I got a call asking why I didb't show up, so I explained about the receptionist and made an appointment for the next day and explained, if I make two trips and have to wear an uncomfortable tie, my rate is double."Perhaps you can find someone with a tie a lot cheaper, but I was under the impression that you needed a problem solved, not a tie. So I went back, wearing a tie with my tee shirt and shorts, fixed the problem and billed for two trips and time at double my normalrate CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr.PhD P. E. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
Rejected for not wearing a tie? :wtf: Some people/companies have their priorities completely backwards... I've never worn a tie in my life.
Dr.Walt Fair, PE wrote:
went back, wearing a tie with my tee shirt and shorts, fixed the problem and billed for two trips and time at double my normalrate
That'll show 'em :laugh:
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
trønderen wrote:
'properly dressed', white shirt and tie.
If I'm told there's some sort of dress code, I always ask at what time the Queen of England is scheduled to arrive, so I can plan to be done and long gone by then. If that's a problem, I'm okay telling these people this is not the place for me. I've never had a job where I was hired to make a fashion statement. I'm holding back even less the older I get. I have no time for such BS.
You'll need to update that to the King, now, of course :-D OOI, why refer to the King/Queen of England? The monarch is monarch of The United Kingdom and commonwealth realms, not just England. The last person who was literally "Queen of England" (only) was Queen Anne in 1707, when the act of union occurred. I know, it's utter tosh, but nonetheless it always interests me why (particularly, but not only) North Americans refer to the King/Queen of England.
-
You'll need to update that to the King, now, of course :-D OOI, why refer to the King/Queen of England? The monarch is monarch of The United Kingdom and commonwealth realms, not just England. The last person who was literally "Queen of England" (only) was Queen Anne in 1707, when the act of union occurred. I know, it's utter tosh, but nonetheless it always interests me why (particularly, but not only) North Americans refer to the King/Queen of England.
I was fully aware of everything you mentioned at the time I posted it, especially the bit about the Queen / King of England, who clearly rather represent the entire Commonwealth. It's just shorter, maybe...? Wasn't the Queen's full title something like 3 pages long?
-
I was fully aware of everything you mentioned at the time I posted it, especially the bit about the Queen / King of England, who clearly rather represent the entire Commonwealth. It's just shorter, maybe...? Wasn't the Queen's full title something like 3 pages long?
dandy72 wrote:
Wasn't the Queen's full title something like 3 pages long?
Quite possibly. As I said, it's all tosh. But it strikes me as analogous to referring to the President of Idaho or the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan. Technically true, but it would grate for "natives".
-
dandy72 wrote:
Wasn't the Queen's full title something like 3 pages long?
Quite possibly. As I said, it's all tosh. But it strikes me as analogous to referring to the President of Idaho or the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan. Technically true, but it would grate for "natives".
