Comments on: The Great Microsoft Imposed Development Culture

By: Mort Revisited « The Limber Lambda

Mort Revisited « The Limber Lambda — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:05:06 +0000

[...] just re-affirms my (reluctant) assertion that it doesn’t really take rocket scientists to keep critical business systems running. It [...]

By: Serfsmith

Serfsmith — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 08:54:31 +0000

@Chris – agreed–”good” depends on where you’re coming from. Perhaps my view is a bit idealistic. I generally automatically discount behaviour based on dubious motives, but that, I know, is naïve. Doing things *with* thought or care as to the consequences then requires a measure of personal and professional maturity.

It could be argued that selfish motives are in fact the only factors that influence us. For alot of us, the realisation that adding medium to long term value to software that belongs to the company that we work for will in fact benefit us personally through recognition and respect, becomes a strong driving force.

By: Chris Bilson

Chris Bilson — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:36:30 +0000

“Most profitable?” Is that what the civil engineer is trying to achieve?

I think a lot of the questions around what’s “good” and what’s not depend entirely on one’s motivations. If someone is building crummy software, getting paid by the hour, and not planning on sticking around long enough to maintain it, they’ll build something that fits those motivations.

On the other hand, if you are building software to make a business money, as part of the business, with motivations aligned, you tend towards things that improve quality, such as the SOLID principles.

In our industry, it’s really easy to skate by with selfish motivations, and do whatever is quickest and easiest for oneself, without thought, or care as to the consequences.