RE: Two persons per product" -- MIDRANGE-L

Nathan,

See inline.

jt

| -----Original Message-----
| From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
| [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Nathan M. Andelin
| Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 5:07 PM
| To: midrange-l@midrange.com
| Subject: Re: Two persons per product"
| Importance: High
|
|
| From: "Leif Svalgaard" <leif@attglobal.net>
| > In order that the blueprints be understandable
| > and hence useful now and 20 years from now, there is
| > very little room for "creativity" and "personal style".
|
| If programming were standardized to the level of blueprints, then most
| programs would be produced by programs (code generators), similar
| to the way
| blueprints are produced by programs (computer aided drafting).  Relatively
| little human involvement.  Very little creativity.
|
| Fortunately our profession hasn't reached that point.  Nor do I think it
| will.

It has been approaching that point, with Synon, Lansa, BCD, etc...  Some are
more successful than others with this approach.  The future...?  Hardware
costs go down, CASE tools improve, programmer costs go up...  Hard to say
what will happen, for sure, but I don't see these trends reversing.

However, I've used Synon and studied CASE tools.  I haven't seen where these
products diminish the need for creativity.. rather the opposite.

|
| Blueprints define a state.  Similar to the way a data structure defines a
| state.  There's not much room for creativity in that.  But,
| programs do much
| more than define state.  They also define a process.  Similar to the way a
| story defines a plot.

I started a reply to Leif's original post, this afternoon, but am just now
finishing it.  Funny how (as Paul Conte, and maybe others have said) "Great
minds run in the same gutter"...  LOL...!

I too used the analogy of writing a story, but I drew a different
conclusion.  I'll follow up, hopefully in a bit.


|
| > The pride in your work comes not from being
| > original but from executing your job in a professional
| > manner.
|
| While blueprint standards are rigid, and original expression is minimal, I
| don't find that particularly "professional".  Professionals are
| distinguished by the use of their brains, talents, and other resources of
| that may be available to solve unconventional problems.

Could not agree more...

|
| Is drafting considered more professional than architecture because in
| drafting, standards are more rigid?

I agree with Joel Fritz' reply.  But I'd also say that architecture is
generally considered more professional that drafting.  But I think it
relates to your previous point, that architecture requires more creativity
to solve the more complex problems, rather than the fact that drafting has
more rigid standards.

|
| Creativity and original expression are also requirements of ownership
| (copyright law).  I don't see much value in minimizing their role.

We've had a couple off-list exchanges on this subject.  I think I've said
that I basically agree, in general, with this view.

(However, in my particular case copyright does little good...  I follow the
80/20 rule so *strictly*, that I never get anything completed...! ;-)

I, too, see little value in minimizing the role of creativity, although I
agree with Leif, in general (as I hope to post, shortly).

|
| Hopefully these points don't detract too much from the original topic of
| teamwork, which is often a good approach to software development.

Dunno about others, but I don't think so...!

|
|
| Nathan M. Andelin
| www.relational-data.com