geek

John Kawakami johnk at cyberjava.com
Wed Sep 13 22:16:11 PDT 2000


Programming might be "art" in college, and it might have art in it when you're on a very small machine like an Apple II, but - Enterprise Java Beans on a well stocked Sun server isn't Art. It barely qualifies as a craft. I've also seen some Visual Basic code that's more like "outsider art" than the real thing. I'm working on a PHP project which reminds me of Jackson Pollock. (That's not to say I'm not enjoying myself.)

It seems to me that much of the art of software engineering is in finding a consonance with the business needs of the corporation. Hit that sweet spot, and you'll be blessed with short days and easy updates to your code. Miss the mark, and you'll pay in tight deadlines and difficult relations with your managers.

This, I suppose, is the situation of many technical intellectuals in the First World....

perldiver


>kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> wrote
>
><
>also, my sensors are cued to this b/c as i expl'd to peter, this is one
>of
>the fundamental signs of an unorganized set of practices (an art)
>becoming
>professionalized and formalized. i'm not blowing smoke here--this is
>well
>documented in the literature. to make this critique is not to render
>the
>object of critique insignificant, sinister, or even disingenuous. it
>is
>to point out the contradictions and problems with the discourse and to
>make
>connections and analogies with other examples in recent history to ask,
>"what direction is this taking? what's at stake? who has a stake?"
>etc.
>>
>
>Here, we are in agreement, and this paragraph is the heart of the
>matter. In the last post you referenced Noble's _America by Design_.
>Indeed. That is exactly the case of the programmer in my career.
>I would also cite Joan Greenbaum's _In the Name of Efficiency_,
>(about 1980) which is in the same vein, but very specific to
>programmers.
>
>IMO, the reason corporations want to make programming into
>software engineering from art is the issue of who owns the work.
>The work is at once both art and property; art for me and
>property to the corporation.
>
>I once was pulled off code I considered very important to
>the product, and forced to insert copyright statements into
>the source and object of every module:
> (C) XYZ Corp, 1985
>and then it hit me. My God, this is a claim of *ownership*!
>
>No wonder this mindless work was more important than what I
>believed in.
>
>I always considered the code mine, somehow. I was proud of the
>product, I wanted it to succeed, if only management would let
>me. And here I was in mindless work refuting my own feelings.
>It sure took the wind out of my sails.
>
>So long as it is art, there is a moral ownership the artisan
>has to the product as opposed to the legal ownership the
>corporation has to the property. In my career, I saw
>programmers changed from artists or artisans to software
>engineers. First in school, where students are attracted
>by a well-paying job, not by work they love. If you
>succeed in school by getting a CS degree, you have
>proven that you can complete assignments you do not enjoy,
>which is the perfect qualification for working in a corporation.
>
>The issue is, who owns the work.
>
>--
>John K. Taber

--

-------------------------------------- John Kawakami johnk at cyberjava.com, johnk at firstlook.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list