I just saw a "software engineer and programmer difference", which is obviously too deep in some so-called "master".
Over the time, we worshiped in the language, and later had a mode worship and software engineering, and now it is popular in UML and architecture. "International Song" is good: there is no savior. F.Brooks said in more than 20 years: no silver! - Practice is the only standard for testing truth. The practice of more than 20 years has proven that Brooks' arguments are correct.
First, before the encoding, the software design idea and content cannot be effectively understood, specifically to fully understand the UML model of the specification; if the CODER does not effectively understand, is it just a problem of CODER? Are there any explanation of his design ideas? Moreover, UML is not the only expression means of design, as well as Architect's correct understanding of demand, maybe his design is wrong. Besides, if the level of CODER can easily understand the design ideas, even correct the mistakes, what else is to do?
Second, after the encoding, the high quality code cannot be provided to the integrated test or system tester, which is specifically referred to as a unclear unit test; can not consciously carry out unit testing is mainly the responsibility of CODER, but according to the spirit of TDD Said, test (noun) is the performance of demand, it should be "first" instead of completion of the coding. There is also a problem here: Architect can be refined to the extent that the needs can be tested before the coding begins?
Third, during the encoding process, it is not possible to cooperate with other developers, which is specifically shown to lack basic software configuration and change management concepts and practical foundations. The problem of bad problems exists with the basis of Chinese traditional culture, but there is a key reason to: the company's own team building work is not in place, that is, those Manager are very important. As for the use of software configuration and change management, there is no technical content, as long as it makes a short training, the key is to long-acting management mechanism, such as institutional DAILY Building, etc. These have nothing to do with CODER.
As a CODER, the most important thing is to do Coding work.
Earth people know that the success or failure of a software is not entirely the cause of CODE. For example, 549 said in ARI's "gradually, understands!" Said: in fact, most people do not qualify for CODER. This is a very important fact. In this case, it is a very sinister argument that the quality of the Architect and Manager is a very innocent. If both CODER has such an ability, what do these Architect and Manager do?
It is also in Ari "getting a close, understands!", Xiaolan replied:
Different levels are different from the planning and understanding of their professional life, just like you are drunk in technology details, I feel that it is very cool. After two years, CODER can't bring you pleasure, you gradually learn research Architecture, team ..., you think PM is your pursuit, for another two years, you think that the success of PM is not enough, so you have started working on some capital, talk about management concept. In the past two years, you are already an international person, starting with Chen Tianqiao flat, in two years, you have been enthusiastic about writing self-passwords, and the key to enterprises is actually the key is not to stop thinking. Don't satisfy the status quo, think about this trim After two years, I saw it very ridiculous because you were another hierarchy.
This shows the root cause: That is to do CODER's channel without lifting. Everyone has their own specialty and adaptation, not everyone is suitable for Architect or Manager, not to say what capital operation. According to "Peter Principles", when a person is rising to a uncomfortable location, it will begin to have such performance: deliberately showing a highly desirable feeling.
Or, as the topic of this article: Too high.
I dare not say that all Architect or (Project) Manager in China is the case, but at least most. The easiest way to judge this person is to push the responsibility to the CODER when there is a problem in the project progression.
In fact, the topic of this article stems from a few days ago and the 在 on the MSN. Linghu said:
It is achieved in the feeling of so-called technology about Architect, which is nothing to say about this high-ranking Dongdong. It is very simple to talk about these things, just like "Capital Operations" in the group, get some new concepts come out, one can show yourself, "I can't afford it." I understand this new stuff. " Second, it is not risky, and does not need a specific case without the actual system.
I added: I can also deceive money. China's software industry has no hope, no one wants to work hard.
Linghu: The whole environment is now the case, everyone is very impetuous, the company is first impetuous, and customers are also impetuous. Because many projects are now official, they are not afraid of spending money, so engineers don't care, I just need to do what I want, money doesn't matter. That's it. If you really want to spend your own money, I am afraid that many people think about this feature is really needed.
In fact, Ari said in "gradually, understand!": The real user (or mature users), will never care about your technical details, he only cares about his needs!
I have expressed similar views in "Effective Articles: Programming Nature": Software Development Two focus, one is demand, one is the implementation of demand. Other means are served for these two key services, otherwise it is inverted.
Those who have been tall and tall, still a little less, do you do something.
