August 21, 2005
Anti-Intellectualism & Programming
I recently had morning coffee with Paul, a friend, long-time Wing Ding participant, and former co-worker. He related a recent experience that is all too familiar to us in the software development business.
Paul was told to make some new stuff. Paul, being the experienced, thoughtful professional that he is, suggested that this new stuff be testable. You know, unit tests, test scripts, stubs for testing... the usual best practice stuff.
Of course, his suggestions were met with derision. Specifically "This isn't academia. We do things differently here."
My recent experiences aren't so different. One of my current projects has a lot of stored procedures. (Not my decision.) Of course, none of this stuff is in source control. So I learn SQL Server well enough to export all this stuff, write some build scipts (start server, create database, create stored procedures, smoke tests, etc.), and stuff it all into our Subversion repository. The original programmer of this stuff is less than enthusiastic about the new discipline.
So I mention to my otherwise fairly well intented manager "Hey, you know, I'll need part of one of the spare boxes lying around for the nightly builds." What!? Nightly builds? Oh no, I don't want you wasting your time on that stuff.
I am so done having this conversation. It's not like I'm Moses coming down from the mountain. Or just making this shit up for kicks. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a debatable topic. If the goal is to succeed, you have testing regimes, use source control, and setup automated nightly builds, etc.
I (mostly) get the ignorance thing. Ditto the nickel-wise, dollar foolish thing. And I grudgely admit there's that reluctance to change thing.
But what I don't get is the anti-rational strategies so many of my contemporaries employ. This isn't the struggle for progress as described in The Diffusion of Innovations.
It feels more like the so-called debates about evolution, anthropogenic global warming, and supply-side economics. One side is using facts, figures, and reality. The other side is using ideology, rhetoric, and willful ignorance.
I've never understood the anti-intellectual undercurrent of American society. It's anti-progress and therefore anti-human. It floors me that anti-intellectualism has such a strong grip on persons whose very wage earning potential depends on their ability to absorb, intepret, and use knowledge.
Paul was told to make some new stuff. Paul, being the experienced, thoughtful professional that he is, suggested that this new stuff be testable. You know, unit tests, test scripts, stubs for testing... the usual best practice stuff.
Of course, his suggestions were met with derision. Specifically "This isn't academia. We do things differently here."
My recent experiences aren't so different. One of my current projects has a lot of stored procedures. (Not my decision.) Of course, none of this stuff is in source control. So I learn SQL Server well enough to export all this stuff, write some build scipts (start server, create database, create stored procedures, smoke tests, etc.), and stuff it all into our Subversion repository. The original programmer of this stuff is less than enthusiastic about the new discipline.
So I mention to my otherwise fairly well intented manager "Hey, you know, I'll need part of one of the spare boxes lying around for the nightly builds." What!? Nightly builds? Oh no, I don't want you wasting your time on that stuff.
I am so done having this conversation. It's not like I'm Moses coming down from the mountain. Or just making this shit up for kicks. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a debatable topic. If the goal is to succeed, you have testing regimes, use source control, and setup automated nightly builds, etc.
I (mostly) get the ignorance thing. Ditto the nickel-wise, dollar foolish thing. And I grudgely admit there's that reluctance to change thing.
But what I don't get is the anti-rational strategies so many of my contemporaries employ. This isn't the struggle for progress as described in The Diffusion of Innovations.
It feels more like the so-called debates about evolution, anthropogenic global warming, and supply-side economics. One side is using facts, figures, and reality. The other side is using ideology, rhetoric, and willful ignorance.
I've never understood the anti-intellectual undercurrent of American society. It's anti-progress and therefore anti-human. It floors me that anti-intellectualism has such a strong grip on persons whose very wage earning potential depends on their ability to absorb, intepret, and use knowledge.
