Re: OOP - a question about database access

"Tak To" <takto_at_alum.mit.edu.-> wrote in message news:SL2dnT2mKoCgOjGiRVn-sA_at_comcast.com...
> "Tak To" <takto_at_alum.mit.edu.-> wrote
> TT.0> It seems to me that these managers have confused features with
> TT.0> tasks. Using the analogy of a building: these managers think
> TT.0> they can schedule construction by rooms, thereby ignoring
> TT.0> tasks such as pouring the foundation, laying down the pipes
> TT.0> and ducts and pulling the wires.
>
> Bob Badour wrote:
> BB.1> A foundation is a feature. Pipes are features. Ducts are features.
> BB.1> Wires are features. Some features are "must have" features and
> BB.1> some are not. Humanity got by without foundations, pipes, ducts
> BB.1> or wires for many millenia. Granted, dwellings without
> BB.1> foundations have quality, stability and durability issues, but
> BB.1> they are still used on every continent.
>
> TT.2> I am not sure if you think my analogy is inapt, or you think there
> TT.2> is no distinction between tasks and features.
>
> BB.3> There is a distinction between tasks and features. However,
> BB.3> I find both the analogy and the conclusion inapt. Managers do
> BB.3> not need to divide features into tasks; the tech staff working
> BB.3> for the managers need to have this skill.
>
> This is _your_ point of view of what a manager should do, and this
> is exactly where we differ. I assume we are talking about a
> technical manager here and in my view (no doubt different from
> yours) a technical manager should manage technology -- i.e., the
> development of software.

Management is management. Selling is selling. They require different skills from engineering and from building. I have direct experience with excellent technology managers who did not have a technology background, and I have direct experience of horrible managers who had a technology background. I also have direct experience of people with a technology background who acquired management skills and became excellent managers, and I have direct experience of people with a technology background who acquired salesmanship skills and became excellent salesmen. However, a technology background does not make one a manager or a salesman, and neither managers nor salesmen require a technology background.

You may never have experienced what I have experienced, but my experience contradicts and invalidates your assertion. Since your only support for your assertion amounts to claiming ignorance of any contradictory information, the support for your assertion is inadequate.

> BB.3> You assumed that features are rooms and then the only "tasks"
> BB.3> you mentioned amounted to "add a feature". Pulling wire is
> BB.3> the equivalent of adding the wiring feature.
>
> No, this was my analogy so I got to choose what constitutes
> features.

And I got to decide whether the analogy is apt. The analogy is inapt for the reasons I stated previously. Claiming that plumbing is a task and not a feature does not change reality.

> BB.3> Stripping a wire or fastening a conduit or connecting a
> BB.3> box is a task.
>
> It is a task, but not necessarily at the right granular
> level to be assigned to a team member.

You are joking, right? If not an electrician, who will strip the wire? Who will fasten the conduit? Who will connect the box? Who will pull the wire for that matter?

Are you suggesting that 'add a room' is an appropriate task to assign to a team member? Will all of your team members have the following trades? Carpentry, plumbing, electrical, drywalling, plastering, painting, flooring, interior decoration?

> TT.2> So let me try again. Contracting a plumber to do the water
> TT.2> pipes as well as the wiring conduits is a task, not a
> TT.2> feature.
>
> BB.3> The task is: Hire someone, a plumber, to add a feature,
> BB.3> plumbing, which is a management task, and every manager
> BB.3> has the requisite skill. The plumber has the requisite
> BB.3> skill to break the plumbing feature into necessary tasks.
>
> But plumbing is _not_ a feature in my analogy and my usage of
> the word "feature", which has been explained:

It is a feature regardless whether you call it one. If you insist that it must not be a feature for the sake of your analogy, then your analogy is inapt. Basically, your analogy is nothing more than a straw man, and I do not find it at all convincing.

> TT.2> A manager talks features with the customer, tasks with
> TT.2> his team.
>
> Note that your team member may be a manager himself, in which
> case the task that you have assigned to him becomes a feature
> from his perspective. In other words, the plumber that you
> have contracted might actually be a plumbing contractor
> who assigns finer tasks to his team members.

Sometimes multiple programmers collaborate on a feature. So? Do you have a point?

> BB.3> I disagree that it is necessary for a manager to talk
> BB.3> tasks with his or her team provided the tech staff have
> BB.3> the requisite skill to translate tasks completed into an
> BB.3> accurate fraction of the feature.
>
> You completely miss my point that a customer may not want
> to organize things in the way you want them organized.

You completely miss every point I make, and I did not say anywhere that anyone must force the customer to anything the customer does not want to do.

> TT.2> There is no fixed relation between features and tasks:
> TT.2> a feature may requires several tasks, or a task can
> TT.2> implement several features.
>
> BB.3> I find the latter assertion questionable. What sort of
> BB.3> task implements several features?
>
> I don't understand your question.

In other words, no task can implement several features, and you find it inconvenient to admit the fact.

> TT.0> Translating featuers to tasks is often non-trivial. Most
> TT.0> managers lack the necessary skillset and that is often why
> TT.0> they become managers instead of architects or independent
> TT.0> consultants.
>
> BB.1> Every manager has the necessary skillset to ask [...]
>
> TT.2> I am not sure why you assume that all managers are competent.
>
> BB.3> I assume only the competence to ask a question. Is that
> BB.3> too much?
>
> Yes (I think you are assuming too much) based on my experience.

Your experience is not worth much if you can only draw conclusions from what you have never experienced, and your lack of an experience cannot invalidate my experience of an event or of a fact. My positive experience of an event or of a fact can and does invalidate any assertion you make on the basis of ignorance.

I find it quite a stretch (far beyond credibility, in fact) to claim that all managers lack the skill to ask a question.

> TT.2> Perhaps we have a fundamental disagreement. I think it is
> TT.2> the manager's job to map features to tasks and to assign tasks
> TT.2> to team members.
>
> BB.3> I would never work for you, nor would I want to work for any
> BB.3> manager who second guesses my decisions. The only task a
> BB.3> manager really needs to map to a feature is: implement the
> BB.3> feature.
>
> I am not sure I would hire you.

Good. You will get what you deserve instead. Received on Sat Nov 08 2003 - 16:20:40 CET