Nearly 15 years of writing about most aspects of software development. Not really awesome, but it is my attempt to make some sense out of 30 years of software development.
I've got 30+ years of programming/design/managing experience. I prefer algorithmic coding for backends but I have worked in a wide range of different positions, systems, and domains.
It is mentioned a couple times explicitly, but I think most of the readers for this blog would know that the border line for tractable is polynomial growth. Still, it is an interesting observation, worth investigating.
Interesting. The boss gives a very specific set of requirements, then the programmer disobeys this direct order, goes behind his back to do it differently and has essentially been lying to him or her for months.
It doesn't matter if it's the right or wrong technology choice, this is really an issue of 'work ethic'. Perhaps if the language was left unspecified, or it was a suggestion to use C rather than a requirement then it might be different, but this sounds like a rather blatant violation of trust based on a lack of respect.
I'd have no problems removing the programmer from the project, even if the software was awesome.
Yeah, I think this is an important point. If you don't agree with your bosses architectural decisions, you probably should have discussed those initially. If you feel like your boss wasn't listening to reason, does he have a boss? Simply going off and doing your own thing seems like a particularly bad idea, and I'm not sure I'd want someone on my team acting in the same manner.
Personally I think it is sad. FB tricks people into paying too much, and then some wealthy guy who should have been able to evaluate the offer properly gets fooled, but because he can afford the loss he tries to justify the whole thing, so that perhaps he can pull the same nasty stunt like that sometime in the future.
Using Cuban's own auction analogy, he was basically defrauded by buying a 'fake' collectors item, and thinks the fault lies with the purchasers (for not recognizing a fake when they see it) not the sellers or the auction house for perpetrating this ruse.
The world doesn't need 7 billion programmers, and if people really do want to learn programming then they should learn to do it correctly since the world doesn't need anymore badly written software (we have enough already).
When I get paid to work I really care that the work I do is worth the money I am paid. That is, if I'm paid for 40 hours, I feel its important to give my employer 40 hours of good solid work. From time to time, I don't mind going above and beyond, things happen and sometimes it takes a significant effort to correct them, a bit of overtime is fine. But I strongly feel that any of those companies that pay people for 40 hours of work, but generally expect them to work 60 or 80 hours most weeks are abusing the relationship on their side. What they are looking for is a seriously large discount in labor costs. Unless there is some 'other' form of compensation that balances it out, then it is clearly abusive (and quickly leads to burnout, so they aren't even getting value for the hours worked).
Nearly 15 years of writing about most aspects of software development. Not really awesome, but it is my attempt to make some sense out of 30 years of software development.