[LINK] The Ethics (!) of Dodgy Web Designers

[Craig Sanders]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 04:40:52PM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 15:42 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > there's a difference between hacking something up for yourself
> > and doing it, for pay or otherwise, for others. competence and
> > professionalism and attention to detail are *mandatory*
> > requirements for the latter
> 
> You are confusing "mandatory" as in "required by law" with "mandatory"
> as in "required by reality". The whole point of Rick's initial message
> was that anyone can grab some tools and whip up something without having
> the ghost of a clue as to how it works or what the consequences will be
> if it is used.

sorry, it's you getting confused. i never said anything about "required
by law". i'm talking, and always have been, SOLELY about "required by
reality".

legally, anyone can and should be able to do whatever they want with
their computer. in reality, though, you actually need to know what
you're doing. that may be unpleasant, it may not be the way you want
things to be, but that's reality. and no matter how good the technology
gets, it will ALWAYS be reality. technology is not and never will be a
substitute for human thinking.

mention of law has only been made about those selling allegedly
"professional" services to others - in that case, then yes, there
bloody well should be minimum standards of competence and knowledge and
fitness-for-purpose that have to be met.


> > or YOU could avoid embarassing yourself by, in future, not taking
> > obvious hyperbole at literal face-value.
> 
> Would that it were hyperbole. You wrote that at the end of an entire
> missive devoted to supporting it pretty much as written. You are clearly
> of the opinion that the clueless should be prevented (by some
> unspecified mechanism) from using tools that they do not properly

you are clearly of the opinion that you can make up any crap you like and
attribute it to your opponent as if it is what they are arguing.


> The suggestion that people in this new environment should be dissuaded
> from participation, let alone forbidden from participating is foolish,
> and IMHO, makes its proponent look foolish.

aside from you placing your own bizarre interpretations on what people
are saying, nobody has said anything about dissuading anyone from
pariticipation.

advising people that they need to learn and even providing rough
pointers about what needs to be learnt is NOT dissuading. in my book,
that's the first step in education, the first step in encouragement.

those of us who have a certain level of knowledge and experience in the
field are, IMO, obligated to point newbies in the right direction, and
especially to steer them away from basic mistakes. what you tell them
may mean nothing to them until they actually make the mistake but at
that point, they may remember what you said and figure out what it is
they should have done....but if you don't tell them then they may never
figure it out, they may not even realise they're making a big mistake.

telling people "you don't need to learn anything to program" is not
doing them any favours. it's a lie. far better to tell them, a bit at a
time if necessary, what they need to learn.


> PS: You also wrote "i would never hire a programmer who had only a
> degree and no experience". If everybody was like you, no-one would
> ever *get* experience. Bit of a dead end, that. 

you get programming experience by writing programs, by reading
documentation, by discovering where documentation and actuality
differ, by making mistakes and *learning from them*. you don't have to
be employed to write programs. there are thousands of free software
projects to contribute to, and it is always possible to write stuff for
your self - or even as part of your education.

> It's a good thing someone was prepared to take a chance on *you*, hm?

i taught myself programming years before i was employed as a programmer.
and i still don't have a degree...25 years of programming and systems
admin experience, but no degree.


i think that, like any complex skill, you need to be intrinsically
interested in the subject for its own sake to be really good at it...if
your sole motivation is that it's a job that pays well, it's unlikely
that you're going to be a great programmer.  or systems admin.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

The arms business is founded on human folly, that is why its depths will
never be plumbed and why it will go on forever.  All weapons are defensive
and all spare parts are non-lethal.  The plainest print cannot be read
through a solid gold sovereign, or a ruble or a golden eagle.
		-- Sam Cummings, American arms dealer