Re: The Lambda lambada...Why embedded SQL is becoming irrelevant and why you should s

In article <56674aF26q2fbU1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>It is a beautiful fine day here and I'm off to the beach.

Congtatulations and good luck, Mr Dashwood; may you find the work to be
interesting to you, beneficial to others and profitable to all.

[snip]

>I make no apology for this; while everyone has a right to their own
>attitudes and personality, constant negativity and dismissal of any
>suggestion that might actually try to improve things (without any attempt t
o
>suggest an alternative) is just tiresome.

Not *any* suggestion, Mr Dashwood... just the 'all ya gotta do' ones.

>
>Now read on... :-)

I'm simply *dripping* with anticipation.

>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:etki9n$35s$1@reader2.panix.com..
. 
>
>And a workable solution. I know, because I have done it. Certainly it takes
>time and can't be put in place during the lifetime of a single project, but
>it CAN be done. And it is worth doing.

Mr Dashwood, that one person says he has done it does not necessitate that
this thing can be done by others... there just might be more-accomplished
practioners and less-accomplished in the world, you know.

>
>Funny, I didn't see any suggestions from yourself as to how this problem
>might be addressed, yet you dismiss mine as an "All ya gotta do is..."
>solution.

Mr Dashwood, I do not issue job specs so any suggestion I made would have
come, by definition, from inexperience.  If you'll recall Mr Maclean
stated what he had seen in the job-hunting world ('Persuading others that
I can do it is the hard part...'), I responded with some of my experiences
and you responded with 'That matches my experience exactly.  How to
resolve it?  Don't give pimps a job spec loaded with acronyms.'

I do not believe that Mr Maclean issues job specs, either... but all three
of us have had experiences identical to your own and we may, among us,
have the better part of a century's-worth of experience dealing with this.
If that's to be discounted, of course, then so be it... but perhaps I am
stodgy and tend to be slightly reticent about discounting simple, obvious
repetitive phenomena I have seen demonstrated at company after company
over continent after continent.

The original cartoon was published nearly thirty years ago, Mr Dashwood,
and yet programmers still smile over the punch-line 'All right, you all
start coding while I go and find out what the user *really* wants'.  It
may be, Mr Dashwood, that plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

>
>Any fool can find fault. It takes a wise man to find fault wisely.

Mr Dashwood, stating fact and experience is just that, it is not 'finding
fault'... but it takes a Manager to find an 'all ya gotta do is' solution
and then call competent people 'fools' for pointing out that things might
not be that simple.

>
>Perhaps you prefer to have an "insoluble problem" so you can whinge about i
t
>here?

When it comes to looking for work, Mr Dashwood, what I prefer is a client
with a computer-programming need that I am paid with a decent rate to
satisfy.  You go to meetings and cheerlead folks, me... let me sling code.

> 
>
>My experience has been that the above Rule Number Zero is hogwash.

Our experiences are different, then, Mr Dashwood... but it may take a wise
man to respond to such a situation with equanimity and rationality.

>
>There are SOME people who don't want to do any work; fortunately, they are 
a
>minority. The majority are very happy to do work, PROVIDED they feel it is
>worth doing and they can derive satisfaction from doing it.
>
>Time and again, motivated teams of people produce results that are
>outstanding and far exceed expectations.
>
>But usually these are not people who have allowed their past failures to
>create cynicism that has gnawed away their enthusiasm until there is only
>sullen negativity remaining.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, Mr Dashwood... but it seems to
be a variant of 'ANYONE who's not crying out, delightedly, about those
wonderful clothes the Emperor's wearing is Just Not A Team Player'... is
that the gist of it?

> 
>
>Haven't you heard? His personality has undergone a sea change. He and the
>mice play happily together. The cat food he's on has no E numbers...

I'm not on that distribution-list, Mr Dashwood... maybe that's why I've
not heard about lions and lambs sharing bedspace, as well.

> 
>
>I explained that in the original post. Read it again if you are really
>interested and let me know what part of "time" and "inclination" to
>interview hundreds of applicants, you don't understand. The people I did ge
t
>were very suitable, but I accept that there were some we probably misssed
>because of bad pimp filters.

Mr Dashwood, you cannot have it both ways.  'I would have been happy to
have' is a past subjunctive, indicating a condition contrary to fact.  If
you would have been happy to have such folks then you did not have such
folks, despite your interviewing; are you saying that your 'all ya gotta
do is' solution was *not* implemented, despite your key role in the
project?

> 
>Up.. Down... everything is relative...
>
>(A stupid response to a stupid statement. Whilst, two wrongs certainly don'
t
>make a right, it made me feel better.)

To degrade that which contradicts one is a most Managerial skill,
indeed... Mr Dashwood, De Rereum Natura De Rererum Natura Est, and that
was meant with all seriousness.  Water boils - under the same conditions -
at more-or-less the same temperature, gravity makes things fall - under
the same conditions - at more or less the same rate, people look for
consultants/contractors/hired guns - for the same kinds of positions -
with the same acronyms, buzzwords and from the same base of ignorance.

If to rely on experience is stupidity then I've worked with some *very*...
'experienced' managers.

> 
>
>Yes, you're probably right. Might as well give up and not try to work at
>all...
>
>Pretty pointless really isn't it?

Not in the least, Mr Dashwood... but to ignore fact might guarantee less
work.

>
>Of course you can always do a Wowbagger (the indefinitely extended - See
>Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy) and stay on the job  you have. Then there
>is no need to worry about nasty pimps and acronyms on CVs, and there is
>little chance of actually adding any acronyms to your CV anyway, so everyon
e
>is happy. Best of all, you can sit on the sidelines and pontificate on how
>pointless the whole exercise is and how superior you are for not being part
>of it.
>
>Works for some, I guess.

I'm sure it does, Mr Dashwood... but don't worry, we still tolerate your
words despite it all.

So what's the new job?  Do you need any COBOL-coding fools to submit
bragsheets?

DD