I hope that most developers do look beyond code - in my experience,
lots of developers look at process if only because a good process
gives them more time to write the sort of code they want to write. I
I think we as an industry are perpetuating a myth that developers only
care about code and technology, I haven't met many who ONLY care about
this. Many developers care about the people they work with, their
environment (office space, working hours, pair programming,
availability of coffee), the processes, the business they're working
for, their commute, their opportunities to learn in one or more
spheres (technology/business/process/people). Not all of them care
about all of those things, but many developers care about more than
just the code.
In addition, I think it's dangerous to go around saying that
developers only care about code and technology (I've heard this a lot
lately, that's why I blogged about it) because it makes those who care
about other stuff as well feel like there must be something wrong with
them, when in fact we absolutely need people who have a wide range of
Sorry, this topic has just touched on one of my current favourite
rants. One of the things I love about being a developer, and I'm not
alone in this, is the incredibly wide variety of experiences you can
have, and of interests you can exercise. I would hate to think we're
becoming an industry which only attracts people who are interested in
a very specific area. We need those guys too but I genuinely don't
believe "all" or even "most" developers are like that.
On 1 July[masked]:46, [address removed]
<[address removed]> wrote:
> I agree with Trisha but I think he was just pointing out that most
> developers don't look beyond code enough, which is often true. The best
> developers understand that a computer system is part of a wider system, i.e.
> one that includes the users and the business.
> Ps sorry for upsetting some people by attacking php
> Sent from my HTC
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Trisha" <[address removed]>
> Date: Sun, Jul 1,[masked]:49
> Subject: [ljc] agile and strategic
> To: <[address removed]>
> I'm sorry, but this sort of comment makes me very angry.
> a) I don't think it's true and b) whether or not it IS true doesn't
> mean that it should be.
> In order to do our real, day-to-day jobs for which we get paid, we
> MUST understand more than just the technology. We need to be able to
> bridge the gap between business and code and we (as a tribe of
> programmers, maybe not as *every* individual) are going to be
> interested in the process of producing a system. To my mind, the very
> reason agile exists is because some programmers looked at the process
> of things like waterfall and thought: that's not doing what it's
> supposed to, it's not allowing for me to do my job as a programmer
> efficiently, it's not allowing me to do what I do best (i.e. implement
> technologies that actually help the business in some way), therefore
> we shall come up with some ideas around what might meet that need.
> Done well, agile can make our jobs as programmers more satisfying, and
> also delivers more value/visibility to the business more
> quickly/consistently (delete as appropriate)
> Agile processes came about because we looked at a system that was
> under-performing/flawed and tried to improve it. If that's not what
> technologists are good at, I'm in the wrong job.
> PS - I've already ranted about this:
> On 29 June[masked]:26, alexander sharma <[address removed]> wrote:
>> it seems to me that one needs to study agile methodologies in order to do
>> correctly. i think most developers are more interesting in learning about
>> technology than processes.
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Matt Pearce
>> <[address removed]>
>>> Would like to pick up on Richard's comment: 'Agile lacks long-term
>>> planning', on a new thread.
>>> I'm interested in which ways can Agile practitioners keep long-term or
>>> strategic goals in focus, while retaining the agility of being able to
>>> change direction. What works, what doesn't?
>>> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are for the sole use of the
>>> intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
>>> information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), please reply to
>>> sender and destroy all copies of the original message. Any unauthorized
>>> review, use, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying
>>> this email, and/or any action taken in reliance on the contents of this
>>> e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
>>> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on
>>> this mailing list ([address removed])