Ok this article actually gripes me quite a lot due to its wrongful interpretation of what a blue and white collar job is. TBH I read it whilst I was on the toilet so I'm going to go as far as to say it gave me the shits. Unless we are going to start referring to or reclassifying typing on a keyboard for 8 hours a day as strenuous physical activity (which it is not), coding will never be a blue collar job. Blue collar…
They probably think that JavaScript/HTML/CSS programming require no brain usage, hence blue collar job ;)
This is a very excellent point. Blue collar means manual labor, while white color jobs are anything professional. Heck, most of the developers I know rarely even wear a collared shirt to begin with.
Please don't imply that labor that is predominantly manual cannot be professional. A better dichotomy would be: Blue-collar means manual labor, and white-collar means mental labor (with a spectrum between both poles).
I'm not implying anything... I'm going by the dictionary definition.
Wikipedia link has good references, if you care to look them up. I agree that you can be a "professional" who does a lot of manual labor, but the blue/white collar dichotomy is rather established in definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designation_of_workers_by_coll...
> A "white-collar worker" is a salaried professional...
Then with shit code and even more for shit system design you just spend far longer maintaining the technical debt rather than adding genuine value. Every feature takes 4 times longer to implement because of it. It costs more, and ships later. And there are always bugs to fix. Its obvious to anyone capable of writing decent code that it does have value.
> Its obvious to anyone capable of writing decent code that it does have value. Business users are the ones that have to make the value decisions, and they can't write any code, much less decent code.
And they are oblivious to the costs incurred by shit code.
Then with shit code and even more for shit system design you just spend far longer maintaining the technical debt rather than adding genuine value. Every feature takes 4 times longer to implement because of it. It costs more, and ships later. And there are always bugs to fix. Its obvious to anyone capable of writing decent code that it does have value.
"shit code" is in the vast minority of code written, most of it ranges from merely crappy to so beautiful you'd auction off your own mother just to bask in its presence a little longer The reason architecture starts mattering is because you can do things like put that "shit code" behind an interface/microservice/whathaveyou and then the rest of the system just doesn't care. This is why code itself isn't particularly…
Either you're luckier than me or we have a different definitions of shit, but I'd agree that the vast majority of code written is shit.