Do things you are interested in, and that you can commit yourself to spending time on consistently. Dropping things you've started without making the conscious decision to do so will foster a sense of underachievement. Accept that Rome wasn't built in a day and start small. Build yourself up gradually. Use your small successes to build momentum. Accept that you cannot change the past, instead try to guide the future. Invest the time in doing a personal development plan. Even if you don't use it, the simple act of doing it will help to give you some direction and make you appreciate what it is you really want. You can then set about making steps in that direction. Be wary of sacrifices you choose to make, particularly concerning people. Choosing to learn language X instead of language Y is easy to solve when you change your mind, but convincing the person you love to take you back after you chose your career over them is likely to be much much harder.
As any person will have observed more often than not accreditation proves little or nothing about anything. For example many corporations possess numerous different accreditations (some of which are industry specific) e.g. ISO:XXXXX, OHASA, Microsoft Gold etc etc etc. Most of these are simply seen by management functions as a box ticking exercise. The principles and most importantly mindsets evangelised by such accreditations are never enacted or held by those with the power to enact them. Perhaps this is a problem because for some reason management types aren't seen to be a collaborative discipline, but instead a ruling one. Often engineers are at the behest of management decisions which tend to be based upon ill-conceived preconceptions, and poor and/or politicised information. Ultimately more engineers need to hold management positions to ensure values are enforced and engrained within the culture of the organisation. To some extent accreditation is just advertising and brand image.
My house builder is accredited by X, Y and Z but their management and customer service is so poor that I fail to see how the business functions. I think this projects a some what idealistic view, not founded in reality.
Yes. How can I be assured that their mechanism has not, and cannot be compromised? I can obtain updates through their website. I should be able to register for notification when updates are available. Why would I want to allow remote access (even to my ISP) which I cannot monitor? Moreover, why would I want to (potentially) allow (whoever has access) to install whatever they want on my router?
Gloucestershire in the UK have a habit of putting traffic lights on roundabouts which as you can imagine completely defeats the point of one. A round about automatically prioritises traffic based on demand. This combination of two contradictory solutions is the work of the devil.
Roundabouts need traffic lights if any exit has a continuous stream of traffic; it starves the entrance immediately before the exit. If there's much traffic entering before a popular exit, it can easily get backed up. I've seen several roundabouts get traffic lights, or get converted back into a traffic light junction, because of this, as traffic patterns changed.
I am continually frustrated picking up other peoples shit. I abhor the "get it working" attitude. This industry is full of sub-par engineers and lazy attitudes. No excuse, do it properly and then we can stop this "pass the buck" attitude which is common in this industry.
I really hope that this is a sarcastic post? If not, this article is an absolute fking disgrace.
First of all this is not how all large companies work. This is how bad companies, with poor leadership, bad process, and a complete lack of understanding work. And no, the answer isn't to be stuck so deep in process that you cannot move! The answer, like most things, is a considered, fitting and appropriate balance.
Secondly this attitude stinks. There is no way on Earth I would employ you to work for me. Is it any wonder that the software industry has such a lackluster reputation? An industry full of cowboys and CPs (copy and pasters) like yourself. If you really think like this then you should be looking to change your profession. Yes things need to ship, and no we can't develop forever, but without continuous improvement where do we end up? I am sick of hearing the 'people have lives you know' excuse for utter laziness. If you feel like this then you picked the wrong (rapidly changing) industry to work in. Too bad, so sad. Quit whinging and get a job you can leave behind at the end of the day e.g. shelf stacker.
Whatever happened to the Unix philosphy? 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well'. Last thing I want in my inbox. Call me a purist but email is for emailing people.
> Whatever happened to the Unix philosphy? 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well'.
Its still a valid and important way of constructing software systems. But users mostly don't want a separate UI for each of those components, they want them strung together in a way which provides a simple experience that allows them to get the things they want to do done.
The question you should really be asking is why shouldn't they? The best applications out there do one thing and do it well. Awk, sed, vi(m), emacs, git. Need I go on?
This is simply nonsensical. Even the applications you listed don't just "do one thing". Vim and emacs have a trillion features each. Git has way more features than some other versioning systems. When does "one thing" turn into multiple things? Within the context of the thread - when did gmail stop doing one thing? When they added filters? When they added all of the labs features? With this current announcement? Do one thing and do it well is great but defining the scope of the one thing is not something to be taken trivially.
Emacs is the polar opposite of the Unix philosophy; it's more in line with the Lisp Machine tradition. Programs like sort, uniq, and grep don't embed interpreters for dynamic languages and provide thousands of different extensions for anything from reading mail to connecting to IRC.
I think you are missing the subtle tones, implications and context within the comment. It was not meant as a blanket statement hence it is a comment against a specific item.
