| The primary problems in that article are nothing to do with technology. Consider these statements: * "Tom is a genius", which implies the Tom solution is a trusted asset beyond improvement, doubt, or questioning. It also implies the solutions provided by Tom are golden unimproveable truths. * The various statements from Scott suggest an indisputable faith in process and convention. Clearly there are failures at multiple levels here. First of all Tom sounds like a whiny bitch. These personality types are inherently defensive and typically seek to reinforce an individual's position of self triumph in a small pond. Toxic. Secondly, Scott has a lot of faith in process and conventions. Processes and conventions are the absolute enemy of creativity. I understand processes are necessary to establish a certain level of security, but they more typically exist to satisfy some OCD insanity where there is comfort in doing things in a particular way without consideration for why they are done in that way. Many developers cannot tell the different between security and superficial stupidity. Many technology abstractions enable that stupidity thereby convolute the differences between security and OCD stupid which only enables additional stupidity. All of the prior mentioned failures are allowed to exist because the management doesn't want to be involved until there is a problem, such as Tom crying. This is called enabling. Most important of all is that all technology should be questioned, doubted, and challenged. Obviously this sort of continuous improvement is utterly absent, because everybody has a competing agenda. |