Re: Two persons per product"

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.

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.

> 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.

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

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

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


Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com