Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
That all being said, the environmental impact of these supposed "green" energy sources is significant. The production of biofuels like ethanol has decimated habitat, the dangers of wind power to raptors are well known, and now this. There needs to be more study beforehand rather than after the fact. And green energy apologists need to concede that their industry is just as hypocritical about the environment as any other energy producer.
But I disagree with several points in the article (which I did read.) First I don't think that programming is particularly grueling or requires some elite level of dedication. That's not my experience, and my success as a consultant programmer (clients hire me purely for my skillset) is evidence of that. I think the most important thing is to have a predilection for logical thinking and problem solving. Other fields require different skillsets which might attract people with other strengths and personality types. I see nothing wrong with this. I don't understand why the author thinks that someone spending years to master a skill is a bad thing, or that doing so consumes a person's entire life. When I go leave the office, I pursue other interests that have nothing to do with programming. I don't think one must have a brain disorder to be a programmer.
The author shouldn't assume his personality and experience mirrors as a programmer everyone else's. He says "The real injustice of developer inequality is that it doesn't have to be this way." I say, it ISN'T this way.
I love how people who haven't been to college put it down as just a "piece of paper" and assume that college graduates don't know anything about the real world, or are in massive debt. Speaking as someone who worked all through high school, and college, and graduate school... and got a job right away in my field right after college. And I've been working in my field (Java programming) for the last 15 years, mostly as a self-employed consultant. So I've got tons of experience on many projects, probably more than most due to being a consultant. And I make very good money at it.
If college isn't for you, I've got no problem with that. I don't assume that people who don't have a college degree are stupid or have an inferiority complex, etc. Although I do have to wonder about people who have such strong opinions about something they've never experienced themselves, and are so willing to spout stereotypical nonsense about it. Don't presume to know what other people "need."
Almost universally in software development, starting from scratch is a stupid fucking idea repeated by inexperienced developers.
Now a bunch of slashdot will tell me I'm wrong, but that doesn't change the previous statement, just reenforces it.
Obviously you've never worked on a project that involved offshore development.
And by the way, "bird of prey" does not automatically mean "mammal eater." Many birds of prey eat fish, amphibians, birds and yes, even insects. Look up osprey, barred owl, peregrine falcon and American kestrel
Software is very abstract and unless you are a developer or a technical person (which most customers/users aren't), then it's very difficult to conceptualize how it will work once implemented. Then there's the reality of changing customer requirements and priorities. I'd like to know how the OP is writing perfect specs when such a thing doesn't exist in the real world. And there are many other aspects to development which the OP doesn't seem to understand either. Who is doing the business and technical analysis of these requirements? What's the process when requirements change? Where is QA and user acceptance testing in all of this?
I suspect nobody is doing these things. What's really happening is that he writes something up based on vague requirements (which are likely to change), throws it over the wall to a developer, and expects a polished product to be thrown back over. Meanwhile the customer didn't understand what they were asking for in the first place, changed their requirements, increased scope, got something back that was maybe close to the written spec but actually wasn't what they wanted in their mind, with no analysis or design having been done, that wasn't ever tested by anyone other the developer who wrote it. And all of those scenarios are called "bugs" by the OP. This is a dysfunctional process that is unfortunately all too common. No wonder your developers balk at fixing this stuff for free.
I don't doubt that there are bugs in the code, especially if the OP is trying to do this on the cheap. There is no substitute for experienced programmers, and there's a reason that people who are experienced cost more. So the first problem is that the OP thinks he can get something for nothing or next to it. But the main problem here is the OP's lack of understanding about the software development process.
If you want to improve things and not have your customers complaining all the time, then start with yourself - read up on software development methodology, ditch the waterfall/throw over the wall approach, and pay up for developers who know what they are doing. I'd suggest a more agile method where customers are very involved in the process, are able to get their hands on the product as it's being developed and provide continuous feedback. Otherwise, look in the mirror and expect more of the same. Developers don't need your empathy, they need a competent project manager.
Be aware that for an experienced developer, the interview goes both ways. I may want to see some examples of your code to see if your team is up to my standards, and I will certainly be asking many questions myself. If I'm expected to jump through lame interview hoops as part of the process, then it's likely not something I will be interested in - I tend to turn down those interviews.