rcj@clyde.UUCP (10/25/87)
In article <4692@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> earle@jplopto.JPL.NASA.GOV (Greg Earle) writes: } each can take up all of one's time. In the face of this, how can one [ refers to the information explosion in Unix-related areas ^^^^ - rcj] } enter the fray at this late stage and hope to become one of } the all-knowing Guru Elite? It would appear impossible at this stage, } and only those who (through early entrance to this netherworld) have } already accumulated the knowledge will be able to keep up. When they } evolve out of this, this knowledge will be lost. Looking for all } arguments pro and con ... It is a known fact in most research areas that you are required to document your findings. This is *not* true in the type of work that hackers rightfully call "hacking" -- it ain't establishment-style research; it's just playing around. Consequently, my solution to the information explosion and the resultant loss of valuable discoveries when persons move from one area to another is: Modify the hacker ethic to include documentation (not fancy, just complete) as a Feature rather than an Annoyance (and good luck doing it!). I decided to change jobs about a year ago and in my interviewing saga I was appalled at the absolute crap I saw people working on -- little or no documentation, garbage thrown together at midnight even though there was no great deadline to meet, etc. etc. And most of this was at big companies that have guidelines for code development, documentation, testing, and the like. I shudder to think about some of the incomprehensible, untested, bug-ridden software that must be put out by smaller places with no controls whatsoever. Of course, perhaps it is best that the knowledge of the work put out by these so-called "Gurus" be lost -- how many people do you know who want detailed design documentation on the Ford Pinto? Yours for fast, compact, innovative but *readable* and *maintainable* software, The MAD Programmer -- 201-386-6409 (Cornet 232) ^^^^ new extension alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (10/30/87)
In article <15669@clyde.ATT.COM> rcj@moss.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes:
. ... I was appalled
.at the absolute crap I saw people working on -- little or no documentation,
.garbage thrown together at midnight even though there was no great deadline
.to meet, etc. etc. And most of this was at big companies that have
.guidelines for code development, documentation, testing, and the like.
.I shudder to think about some of the incomprehensible, untested, bug-ridden
.software that must be put out by smaller places with no controls whatsoever.
Having worked at both, my experience is that small companies generally do
a better job of software development and documentation than large ones.
When you're small you can't afford to make big mistakes.
I've worked at a place where a $30K loss was a big mistake and at a place
where a $250 million disaster was survivable. Guess who enforced
documentation and coding standards. (Hint: What do you think _caused_ the
$250 million disaster?)
--
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe