The 'shipping' problem isn't caused by programmers. It's caused by architects. Or lack thereof.
Management asks for a product, sometimes even hires someone to design that product. The programmers are then tasked to code that product, including all the features asked for and code them without bugs or flaws. Then they are given an artificial deadline.
When the deadline approaches, they are then given different instructions... They have to either code quickly (sloppily) and ignore the flaws/bugs, or leave out features because it's no longer possible to meet the deadline and do their job properly.
They should -not- be making that decision. Management should be telling them what features to code, letting them get them right, and then giving them more features to code. Create the product incrementally, instead of waiting until the end to force a deadline.
Yes, that sounds an awful lot like Agile, but there's no reason it can't be done in Waterfall. It's a matter of proper planning and responsibility.
If your developers are saying they aren't ready to ship, it's because you've asked too much of them. (Assuming they aren't incompetent, since you should fire them if they are.)
No developer worth his salt wants to ship a product with bugs. To ask them to do so is to ask them to violate their personal ethics. At least, for known problems. Unknown problems will always exist due to the nature of the beast.
You can't always give developers a list of features and wait until they think it's done. Management should give developers a feature/bug list, developers should then estimate the items on that list. Then management can pick a subset of items for the next release. If there are features that really need to be done and there isn't time, management can negotiate the scope or design of the feature with developers (but never the estimates). Sometimes it's better to ship a simpler feature now, than wait to ship a feature that's "right".
"If your developers are saying they aren't ready to ship, it's because you've asked too much of them."
"No developer worth his salt wants to ship a product with bugs. To ask them to do so is to ask them to violate their personal ethics."
I've been looking for other words to put this, but I can't find any that get the emotion across equally well, so here it goes: this is bullshit. One shouldn't ship a product until the artificial, self-set criteria of the developer have been met? When to ship is determined by the product manager, and the developer should stick to fixing the areas that are deemed most important by the team. The developer should then work with the rest of the team to work within the given limits to reach the best result possible.
Fixing bugs is not 'personal ethics', it's at most 'professional pride', which is a laudable goal but not in the same league as 'personal ethics'.
That just shows an empty white box for me (FF 3.6).
The right arrow button to look at the different links has poor discoverability. The first link is shown twice on the main page, and there's no real indication that there are any more links.
[edit: slowness was caused by twitter being open in another tab!]
Licorize is an interesting idea, but I feel needs more work before being unleashed on the general public.
Don't know why but refreshing fixed this issue for me.
Btw, it's the 2nd or 3rd time i see a link to something on licorize but every time i feel its interface it's a bit hard to "get" and a little confusing (it could be me). What about removing the image list at the bottom (it ruins the layout imho), making the page preview clickable and use more identifiable icons? My €0.02.
And to add to the "annoying" bit - do not even bother to watch that youtube video. I kid you not, it is precisely 40% soundbites of the talk (with only slightly more nutritional value than a talk outline) and 60% mindless electronic music (which also plays a good deal louder than the talk). /shudders
11 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 37.5 ms ] threadManagement asks for a product, sometimes even hires someone to design that product. The programmers are then tasked to code that product, including all the features asked for and code them without bugs or flaws. Then they are given an artificial deadline.
When the deadline approaches, they are then given different instructions... They have to either code quickly (sloppily) and ignore the flaws/bugs, or leave out features because it's no longer possible to meet the deadline and do their job properly.
They should -not- be making that decision. Management should be telling them what features to code, letting them get them right, and then giving them more features to code. Create the product incrementally, instead of waiting until the end to force a deadline.
Yes, that sounds an awful lot like Agile, but there's no reason it can't be done in Waterfall. It's a matter of proper planning and responsibility.
If your developers are saying they aren't ready to ship, it's because you've asked too much of them. (Assuming they aren't incompetent, since you should fire them if they are.)
No developer worth his salt wants to ship a product with bugs. To ask them to do so is to ask them to violate their personal ethics. At least, for known problems. Unknown problems will always exist due to the nature of the beast.
I've been looking for other words to put this, but I can't find any that get the emotion across equally well, so here it goes: this is bullshit. One shouldn't ship a product until the artificial, self-set criteria of the developer have been met? When to ship is determined by the product manager, and the developer should stick to fixing the areas that are deemed most important by the team. The developer should then work with the rest of the team to work within the given limits to reach the best result possible.
Fixing bugs is not 'personal ethics', it's at most 'professional pride', which is a laudable goal but not in the same league as 'personal ethics'.
(I am a developer myself, fwiw)
http://licorize.com/users/ppolsinelli/shipping?list
The right arrow button to look at the different links has poor discoverability. The first link is shown twice on the main page, and there's no real indication that there are any more links. [edit: slowness was caused by twitter being open in another tab!]
Licorize is an interesting idea, but I feel needs more work before being unleashed on the general public.
Btw, it's the 2nd or 3rd time i see a link to something on licorize but every time i feel its interface it's a bit hard to "get" and a little confusing (it could be me). What about removing the image list at the bottom (it ruins the layout imho), making the page preview clickable and use more identifiable icons? My €0.02.
But an "open in new window" click gives me a blank box (Safari 5.0.2). Ah, cutting edge technology.