Re: Standards and Egos (was RE: ILE Propoganda) -- RPG400-L

Well, Brad, you've brought up a lot of things I've seen bandied about
concerning this topic.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stone, Brad V (TC)" <bvstone@taylorcorp.com>
To: <RPG400-L@midrange.com>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: Standards and Egos (was RE: ILE Propoganda)


> Interesting view.. devil's avocate's hat sported...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Rehm [mailto:javadisciple@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 12:39 PM
> > To: RPG400-L@midrange.com
> > Subject: Re: ILE Propoganda
> >
> >
> > I think the biggest problem is programmer's ego. The thing
> > is, standards
> > always involve compromise. But, there will always be
> > programmers who feel
> > that doing things the other way is the "better" of the two.
>
> This is true.  Can't argue with you here.  But, are we talking about
> programmers and programmers arguing standards, or programmers and
> management?
>
> If the first, the most of the time a conflict exists because of one of two
> things.
>
> 1.  Someone doesn't want to learn or use new techniques
> 2.  Someone thinks they know more than they really do

I must completely disagree! How can you say that if programmers set
standards to work together it is only because they either don't want to
learn anything new or they think they know more than they do? That statement
simply says, "Standards are no good."

> If it's the second case, then it may be a case of management using their
> "power" for the sake of flexing their "alpha status" (yet more ego).

Sure, it _may_ be such a case. But in a shop like that, having standards is
certainly not the problem so maybe we should ignore them for the sake of
this discussion and just say that if you are in a shop where managers make
technical decisions just to show they are in charge it is time for you to
put your resume on dice.com, okay?

> > Since they are
> > no doubt "smarter" than the people who had to make the
> > decisions in the
> > first place, they violate the standard. Obviously this really
> > proves they
> > aren't as bright as they thought, since they are taking
> > actions which cause
> > the most harm overall, but their ego isn't going to allow
> > that to sink in.
>
> What is worse?  Keeping your bright programmers at the level of those that
> don't want to learn anything new, or letting your bright programmers set
> standards?  Who will be less satisfied in the long run?  Who do you want
to
> feel like a team player, the go-getter or the "I just work for a paycheck
so
> don't make me learn ILE" person?  Who do you want on your side, working
for
> you?
>
> Standards are always changing.  Let's assume a shop doesn't use ILE.  If
> someone starts using it, writing functions, etc, for a "proof of concept"
is
> that bad, or good?  (none of this "if they go off on their own it is!"
crap
> either, let's assume the proper channels are taken.)

It's a good thing. It is a good thing when programmers work out way to
introduce new technology into current standards environments.

Do you think, by the way, that the bright ILE knowing programmers always
vote for that to be the standard? I ask because the company right down the
road where they had such a "no ILE" standard used a team made up of the
senior tech staff from programming, R&D, and operations to make the choices.
These were the guys who knew ILE. But they also were the guys responsible
for training new people and getting the productive.

So they were cautious. When the company seemed to have stabalized in the
number of programmers on staff and they could see that they could implement
new things without a huge impact, they updated their standards a little at a
time based on submissions from programmers that wanted to use ILE.

But you know what, during the time they couldn't use ILE, there really
weren't too many things they couldn't accomplish. It turns out that a
programmer who is _really_ bright, is bright in RPG IV, as well! What do you
know?

> > The thing is, programming using standards is an act of
> > teamwork to allow the
> > whole shop work together more effectively. For programmers to
> > do that, they
> > need to be able to set their ego aside. Really, we all program with
> > standards. Just the egotistical among us only accept our own
> > standards as
> > valid.
>
> Do we set standards, and never change them?  If something is outside of
our
> standards, do we not touch it?  (ie sockets, CGI, etc.. etc..)
>
> See, the problem here is that the term "standards" is just too broad.
There
> are some standards that are good, like using DOW instead of DOU (just
> kidding!!).  But, if we set the standards to strictly and broadly then it
> lets your stars go stale.
>
> I always think of the shop as a team.  I also believe in rewarding
> excellence and eliminating mediocrity.  Now, the latter can be done one of
> two ways, removing them from the team environment or making it a
"standard"
> to learn, test, and implement (where necessary) new standards.

Well, obviously standards need to evolve. But seldom at the pace of the
programmer who feels he knows best.

I cannot agree that "stars go stale" when using standards. Good programmers
work with the tools they have. I wrote many programs using RPG II. I never
had to tell anyone, "Gee, I don't have any looping structures like other
languages so you can't have that program." I never complained that I didn't
have DOW, DOU, and I somehow managed without SETGT and READE and a host of
other things. When those things showed up, if I was in a shop that didn't
use them, would I suddenly not be able to write code?

If a programmer needs the new op codes to accomplish the same task that the
beginner programmers are doing in the old op codes, he isn't "Going stale."
He's lame.


> Brad

Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net
If you believe that the best technology wins the
marketplace, you haven't been paying attention.


+---
| This is the RPG/400 Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---