|
My bottom line is that, as a publicly, tax funded organisation this is a total waste of time (and money). Other, open source frameworks are, at the very least, good enough. Hiding some individuals ego trip behind the stated good of "inclusivity" is weak and unconvincing. The glow framework bespeaks egos run rampant and an IT department with a budget beyond its remit. I worked for a consultancy that produced video on demand to rival iPlayer for a 10th of the budget in a quarter of the time. I've worked at government funded orgs too, and even though the consultancy was greedy, grasping, rapacious, dishonest and generally incompetent at least they had to contend with genuine market forces. The BBC reeks of cronyism, old boyism and general too cool for schoolism. I'm glad they open sourced it but what use is it to anyone? I feel not unlike a Red Top reader caught in some issue related rant but that bottom line is rearing up at me like a moon from the smug wasters at the beebs IT dept. In the words of "Annoyed" of Froom, "Why oh why oh why, BBC, did you waste the licence fee on this half-baked, ill conceived, masturbatory effort when you could of used JQuery and knocked out your code in 1/10th of the time? (And then made a nice episode of Caedfell)?" (You may have to have be a UK citizen, raised on main stream TV in the last 30 years to understand the Points Of View reference) |
I'll bet they can include "using Glow in a large corporate environment for 2 years" as a requirement on all dev jobs in the new media arm that have to be advertised outside too. Nice move.
code-monkey manager: 'we need pay increases to retain talent because devs with Glow familiarity can't be found anywhere' ...
Probably a bit over-cynical.