RE: What counts as technically slick?

It cuts both ways.  My second job was for a large System 38 shop where some
of the "most technically competent programmers" were all co-opted by one
Director who put them all on the sweetest development projects.  As I
started these folks were just finishing up an application rewrite that took
advantage of the coolness of the new OPNQRYF command.  This Director viewed
most of his staff as dullards who couldn't cope with the change from RPG II
to RPG III, and who didn't take the time to learn and use something as slick
as OPNQRYF.  The system crashed and burned when it went live because the
team didn't realize what their code was going to do (build huge access paths
on the fly) with production data.  Other teams had to go in and shoehorn
position and read logic all over the place to replace all the OPNQRYF logic,
reacting to major performance problems for months after the fact.  The best
and the brightest went on to failed client-server attempt after
client-server attempt, eventually being retrained on Sybase and VB.  I
distinctly remember one of them arguing with a data entry user who didn't
understand why she had to use a mouse on her order entry screen.  I'm sure
they're all developing x-tier web apps. on Oracle for companies needing
applications that are good enough, with as few administration points (points
of failure) as possible.

I'd love to hire the most technically competent programmer as long as he or
she knows how to exercise restraint.

-----Original Message-----
From: Buck Calabro [mailto:Buck.Calabro@commsoft.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 3:56 PM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
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
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---