| >all those things have sale values that DIFFER based on that creativity and beauty. Code does not. I wouldn't be so sure about that. I certainly prefer to use software that has a nice interface, is fast and responsive and has thoughtful features. I remember the first time my iPhone opened a pop up at just the right time asking if I wanted to share a wifi password with my Mac. Wow! Delightful. And I am willing to pay more money for such things. >But the customer of my B2B CRUD app does not care if my code looks like a FLW or a mcmansion. They care if it works. What is "works"? I'm not being disingenuous here. The software development process is often plagued by things like scope creep, unreasonable asks from stakeholders, cutting things for budget or time etc... "works" is a subjective concept in your hypothetical customer's mind. Likely molded by you or your project manager setting expectations, pushing back on feature requests, etc... My real point is, it's not just the value of the consumer or "customer". But the artist as well. It's the satisfaction you can get from designing a performant service that handles requirements and has the capacity for future expansion, etc... Just because some people are philistines doesn't make the creation any less valuable as a piece of art. |
A program is not like a car, a chair, or a house, and if any of this were brought up in a design meeting for code, you’d rightfully be laughed out of the meeting.
But it’s fine to disagree about these things up to the moment where you attempt to slow progress towards delivery for these values. At that point, the point at which functionality is hindered in any way by your artistry, are you now a problem on a development team.
There are plenty of productive ways to deal with problems, but make no mistake, on any competent software team you will be disabused of this “art” notion, not the other way around.