This blog, talking about the "1/10" developer as a sort of factored replacement for the "x10" developer, caught my eye over Twitter. Frankly, I'm not sure what to say about it, but there's a part of me that says I need to say something. I don't like the terminology "1/10 developer". As the commenters on the author's blog suggest, it implies a denigration of the individual in question. I don't think that was the author's intent, but intentions don't matter--results do.
Oh, boy. Diving into this whole Adria Richards/people-getting-fired thing is probably a mistake, but it’s reached levels at which I’m just too annoyed by everyone and everything in this to not say something. You have one of three choices: read the summary below and conclude I’m a misogynist without reading the rest; read the summary below and conclude I’m spot-on without reading the rest; or read the rest and draw your own conclusions after hearing the arguments.
As is pretty typical for that site, Lambda the Ultimate has a great discussion on some insights that the creators of Mozart and Oz have come to, regarding the design of programming languages; I repeat the post here for convenience: Now that we are close to releasing Mozart 2 (a complete redesign of the Mozart system), I have been thinking about how best to summarize the lessons we learned about programming paradigms in CTM.
Every once in a while, there is a moment in your life when inspiration just BAM! strikes out of nowhere, telling you what your next blog post is. Then, there’s this one. This blog post wasn’t inspired by any sort of bolt from the blue, or even a conversation with a buddy that led me to think, “Yeah, this is something that I should share with the world”. No, this one comes directly to you, from you.
TL;DR: I'm "unemployed", I'm looking to land a position as a director of development or similar kind of development management role; I'm ridiculously busy in the meantime. My employer, after having suffered the loss of close to a quarter of its consultant workforce on a single project when that project chose to "re-examine its current approach", has decided that (not surprisingly) given the blow to its current cash flow, it's a little expensive keeping an architectural consultant of my caliber on staff, particularly since it seems to me they don't appear to have the projects lined up for all these people to go.
According to this report, Apple is now not only spam-filtering out emails containing particular phraseology (in this case, "barely legal teens"), but deleting them entirely, whether they're being sent to your account, or from your account. And what's even more interesting, apparently iCloud users agreed to give Apple that kind of power. The precedent here is dangerous, and one that needs to be carefully examined--if corporations are going to exercise the ability to investigate/examine (even from an automated tool) the email that you're sending or receiving, then technically privacy is being violated.
There are times when the industry in which I find myself does things that I just don't understand. Consider, for a moment, this blog by Jeff Handley, in which he essentially says that the phrase "We accept pull requests" is "cringe-inducing": Why do the words “we accept pull requests” have such a stigma? Why were they cringe-inducing when I spoke them? Because too many OSS projects use these words as an easy way to shut people up.
Charlie Kindel blogs that he thinks James Gosling (and the rest of Sun) screwed us all with Java and it's "Write Once, Run Anywhere" mantra. It's catchy, but it's wrong. Like a lot of Charlie's blogs, he nails parts of this one squarely on the head: WORA was, is, and always will be, a fallacy. ... It is the “Write once…“ part that’s the most dangerous. We all wish the world was rainbows and unicorns, and “Write once…” implies that there is a world where you can actually write an app once and it will run on all devices.