[cheese1756]

I see your point. I'd argue that programmers who are treated that way have bad managers, though, rather than it being a function of programming as a profession. I've never dealt with a company that hasn't given me some autonomy, though, so I can't really comment on that perspective.

A company can give programmers autonomy, or it can give them bits of information and treat them poorly. It could also do this for its sales team, its lawyers, or its marketing department. This strikes me more as a problem with the company rather than a problem with the nature of programming.

[marcus_holmes]

Yeah, there are business out there who treat programmers "properly", but they're unfortunately the exception rather than the rule, and that's not going to change any time soon.

[inanutshellus]

I push back when the business hands me implementation in requirements (e.g. "Make me a button that rings a bell 10 seconds after I click it" versus "I need to know when a query finishes; it usually takes 10 seconds." which leads to "holy CRAP, that query takes 10 seconds?! Lets solve that!").

The first few times I did it, it caused a bit of an uproar, but very quickly they came to realize that they got better quality software when the person making it understood why he was making it.

Likewise, if you're in an environment where you're an eyes-down bricklayer (and unhappy about it)... Maybe it's time to put your big-boy pants on.

[marcus_holmes]

I agree, and I've done the same, but I do find it ridiculous that we have to be the ones to fight the battle.

This is all known stuff, there's endless research and case studies showing that providing creative programmers with autonomy and authority over their environment creates massively better software results.

But the illusion of control is hard for some people to let go, I guess.