So how about enlighten me as to what was the point then?I'm open to increased understanding.
Give a good read to getpocket.com/explore/item/the-com...
I'm new to programming so I am not excluded in the feeling of wanting to revolutionize everything in every conceivable way. That aside however Mr Martin was not only spot on with everything he said in that talk it's especially poignant with the consideration of the recent Boeing debacle, it's a long! Time now they've known there's a problem and have yet to successfully figure it out. It's childish to disregard the type of warning he's giving when people are actually dying because of bad code. The problem isn't simply the result of honestly unknowable interaction either companies and there imploy are with forethought releasing products they know have problems, they had the resources to potentially mitigate, it's walking the line of a public threat.
To try and characterize that talk as some old foggie telling war stories and lamenting lazy youth is either a purposeful sensationalized argument with thought for truthfullness or you missed the fact that we are as a community participating in endangering people when it's absolutely not a necessity for progress or any other goal.
Thanks. I'm not immune to the argument that Bob Martin made in respect to critical systems and the responsibilities and difficult questions that many software developers face. I'm wondering now whether it was my article you are resonding to or one of the commenters.
I see his key point as being that the industry needs to self-regulate before the government does it to us. Note I explicitly stated "Where there is development of critical systems for likes of spacecraft and airlines then bring on the regulation."
I would further speculate that such regulation is better done within the industries concerned and not over software in general. Although that is a whole other discussion.
At least here I argued that some software needs more rigor than others and that for creativity to live and for the industry to thrive, even if it goes on some strange tangents, we need keep the large volume of software development, which is not life threatening, open and flexibible.
I was less impressed by other aspects of his talk which appeared to be at best some some sort of nostelga trip (and surely he regards himself as a nostalga buff anyway) or at worst about reinforcing his position as someone of experience, and therefore presumably of authority.
I am wary of people using that sort of presumed authority and I may have been a bit flippant in closing, although I said nothing about old foggies or lamenting lazy youth! Age has little to do with it and the youth I describe have been very busy.
I would say that when battling ideas that seek to create industry heirachies in places where they will be overkill and potentially damaging to innovation, a bit of push back does not go astray.
On that last point I completely agree. The issue that seems most important is these problems have a possibility of being completely fixed now if given proper attention soon, this is what I gleaned from the talk. With an entire profession having always been half with less than 5 years experience along with the normal averages if human beings I don't see hierarchy being avoided, in fact I'd argue it maybe the only solution to keeping the untalented and inexperienced out of critical systems. Anyone may code but not anywhere as much as I loathe the idea of supporting any form of governance at all, in this particular case we have to do it to ourselves. But I'm hopeful that the power implicit in developing dictates that only the better developer maybe able to govern the worser, which illudes to the meritocracy, we all were told fairytale the world was and should be as youths.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.