21–30 of 43 posts
Of course there are rare cases that you need to trade size for speed. But it should be done with careful cosideration.
Edit: I forgot to add that I always thought that 'duct tape programming' means writing hacks to fix hacks - which is bad.
This is the most irresponsible thing Joel Spolsky has ever done, and I lost all respect for him after he posted this essay. My bosses at my then-current workplace began using this article as an excuse not to do proper software architecture. I ask you, in what other industry would doing shoddy workmanship be considered an insightful viewpoint? Would you be happy if you discovered you'd hired "The Duct Tape Plumber" to…
In many cases, he has valid opinions, but just like in medicine, more opinions should be sought before making a final decision.
> "But when you’re looking at, ‘We’ve got to go from zero to done in six weeks,’ well, I can’t do that unless I cut something out. And what I’m going to cut out is the stuff that’s not absolutely critical." [...] > Remember, before you freak out, that Zawinski was at Netscape when they were changing the world. They thought that they only had a few months before someone else came along and ate their lunch. A lot of im…
We were a bootstrapped startup, and the need to use bleeding edge tech (our product was hardly rocket science) reinvent the wheel (hey, look at this - I spent a week and created my own grid control!) and a general need to overengineer seemed to blind the astronauts from the fact that if we didn't have anything to sell, we were going to run out of money in a matter of one or two months.
We were "using" agile, and the lead engineer's approach to test cases was "well, if the function failed the test, let's just change the test to make it pass". Sheesh.
Needless to say, the company struggled to meet payroll for an extended period time since we couldn't release anything to generate revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the demote, but I wasn't bashing the article on grounds of its age. If you had actually bothered to read the rest of my comment it would have become obvious that I was referring to the fact that people dig old stuff up and present it as news when the discussion itself has already moved on towards more insightful conclusions a few months ago.
I'm not demoting you (I mostly agree with you, actually), just noting that part of that lack of self-awareness comes from how many programmers seem to consider anything written more than a couple years ago obsolete. It makes sense when dealing with surface details in rapidly changing web APIs, but otherwise that approach condemns programmers to starting from zero and wasting time re-discovering fundamentals. "Mathema…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Udo's defense, this article did cause a stir. That does make it seem like "ancient" history... Peter Seibel tried to "unpack some of the context," it's probably a good place to start for anyone who's interested: http://gigamonkeys.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/a-tale-of-two-re...
What? How? It was only a year ago. Is Windows Vista ancient history? Sheesh.
If only wishing made it so!
This is the most irresponsible thing Joel Spolsky has ever done, and I lost all respect for him after he posted this essay. My bosses at my then-current workplace began using this article as an excuse not to do proper software architecture. I ask you, in what other industry would doing shoddy workmanship be considered an insightful viewpoint? Would you be happy if you discovered you'd hired "The Duct Tape Plumber" to…
Certainly we'd all be happy to have jwz onboard our teams, but Joel holds him out as the one exception of a "good" duct-tape programmer. It's just really absurd. Joel's position seems to be "anyone that does not follow the dictates of the latest MEGA XTREME WATERFALL AGILE METHODOLOGY is going to do more damage than good", when really, like in almost everything else, the passing fads are merely empty promises hyped on to make consultants and specialists rich.
You may want to read jwz's response, I think it is fairly concise and good: http://jwz.livejournal.com/1096593.html
Here we go again: gross oversimplifications from people who make their blogging money by being controversial rather than correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not demoting you (I mostly agree with you, actually), just noting that part of that lack of self-awareness comes from how many programmers seem to consider anything written more than a couple years ago obsolete. It makes sense when dealing with surface details in rapidly changing web APIs, but otherwise that approach condemns programmers to starting from zero and wasting time re-discovering fundamentals. "Mathema…
Sorry, I misunderstood then (probably because my comment got negative karma at the same time). To clarify: I don't think anything written more than a couple years ago is obsolete. But I do feel that this particular article by Joel already caused maximum havoc and people have moved on from it for a good reason. Otherwise I agree with you as well :-)
While I've been programming since I was a kid, my academic background is in history - Viewing the industry through that lens reinforces how it's collectively in an early phase where people still fall to their deaths trying to fly with wings made of wax and feathers.
There have been plenty of people with real breakthroughs, but the average programmer probably hasn't even heard of them. I mean, their work is already obsolete, right?
1. Make it work
2. Make it right
3. Make it fast
All Joel is saying is that If you're up against a time constraint (like trying to ship code) ... its okay not to get to 2 or 3 right then and there.
I think thats a good lesson for hackers to learn.