Re: What counts as technically slick? -- MIDRANGE-L

To quote the famous line from Cool Hand Luke: "What we have here is a failure to communicate"

Has it been made clear to them under what circumstances that they _should_ be doing the conversions? If they aren't doing the conversion, and you feel they should be, let them know why you think they should.

rob@dekko.com
Sent by: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com

04/10/01 08:59 AM
Please respond to MIDRANGE-L

To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
cc:
Subject: Re: What counts as technically slick?

<snip> Technologies should not be implemented until they can be properly supported, which means training. <snip>
Yet, what do you do when you hire Jon Paris to come on site for a few days, send the same people off to yet another RPG training course for a week, send them to 'a Day with Charlie Massoglia' session on RPGIV, and yet to see them use CVTRPGSRC or a subprocedure?
Rob Berendt
================== Remember the Cole!

David & Eileen Keck <bstars@optonline.n To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com et> cc: Sent by: Subject: Re: What counts as technically owner-midrange-l@mi slick? drange.com

04/06/2001 03:26 AM Please respond to MIDRANGE-L

There is something to be said for "good enough". If a business relies on technologies (i.e. coding techniques) which are not well understood by most of the developers in that shop, then serious support issues can arise for that business. In an RPG shop with no C talent, you may come in and significantly speed up a process with a clever bit of C code. When you are unavailable one day and that critical business process fails, the RPG programmers shall certainly curse your clever enhancement. The business executives will rightly criticize IS management for putting the business at risk by not creating and enforcing standards. A business needs compelling reasons to implement new technologies because there are risks and costs. Technologies should not be implemented until they can be properly supported, which means training. Logically, this applies even to the level of coding techniques. - Dave K. (who enjoys learning and doing things in new ways)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Buck Calabro" <Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net> To: <MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 1:56 PM Subject: What counts as technically slick?

> I just got re-subscribed after an email domain change and stumbled in the > middle of the "technically slick vs. good enough" discussion. > > When I modify an existing 1990 vintage RPG II style program, one of the > first things I do is to convert the code into RPG IV. After that, I convert > the section I'm working on into a subprocedure. I've been called bad names > because of this. Apparently the namecallers think this is just too > technical for their taste. > > Is it? > > In lieu of my usual tirade on the topic, let me ask this: Why would a > company _not_ want the most technically competent programmers? What makes > lower standards a Good Thing? Fiscal expediency? If so, that's fine, but > the boss that says that to me had better never utter the words Mission > Critical in my hearing. > > My view: As a programmer, my main product; _my value_ is that I produce > programs. The more skilled I am at producing programs, the more value I > provide to my employer. I fail to comprehend how settling for Good Enough > increases or even maintains my skill level. > > Buck Calabro > Commsoft; Albany, NY > "Nothing is so firmly believed as > that which we least know" -- Michel Montaigne > Visit the Midrange archives at http://www.midrange.com