Embedded Files
Posted by Uncle Bob on 05/11/2009
In my keynote at the Rails Conference last Wednesday, I spoke about What Killed Smalltalk and could it Kill Ruby Too?. In this keynote, as is my wont, I spoke about the need for our industry to define itself as a profession, and for us to define ourselves as professionals. I closed the keynote with this statement: “Professionalism does not mean rigid formalism. Professionalism does not mean adhering to beaurocrasy. Professionalism is honor. Professionalism is being honest with yourself and disciplined in the way you work. Professionalism is not letting fear take over.”
David Heinemeier Hansson, inventor of Rails, and affectionately referred to as @dhh has posted a blog in response in which he asserts that we need artists as well as professionals, and draws a dichotomy between the two. The dichotomy is a false one…
We are a community of artisans. We make things with our hands! We all strive, like @dhh, to make things of great beauty and utility. In no way, and by no means, do I wish to assail that artistry. Indeed, my hope is to free it. I want to convince all programmers that the desire for, and the pursuit of beauty is the way you satisfy your customers. The only way to go fast, is to go well.
I want developers to take pride in their work. I also want them to take pride in the way that they work. I want them to be able to look back on the last few days, weeks, and months, and be able to say to themselves, “I made something beautiful, and I made it well.”
We are a quirky lot. Some of us wear faded jeans with yesterday’s spaghetti on them. Others wear T-shirts that have PI wrapped around them. There are beards, tatoos, tongue-studs and hair in all shapes and colors. There are hawaiian shirts and sandals. There are jackets and ties and sometimes even suits. Some of us speak carefully. Some of us drop F-bombs at a whim. Some of us are liberal, and some are conservative. Some of us relish in being seen, and some of us are glad to be overlooked. In short, we are a group of diverse people who are drawn together by our common passion for code.
There is nothing wrong with this diversity. Indeed it’s healthy. The fact that we all think differently about styles, language, appearance, and values means that there are a zillion different ways that we can learn from each other. And in that learning grows the seed of our profession.
So @dhh is right, at least about the diversity. We should all relish the opportunity to share ideas with people who think differently than we do. But @dhh is wrong when he draws the dichotomy between artists and engineers. Every engineer is an artist, and every artist is an engineer. Every engineer strives for elegance and beauty. Every artist has the need to make their art actually work. The two are inextricably tied. You cannot be one without also being the other.
Now, certainly there are environments where the engineering side of things is emphasized over the artistry side. In extreme cases the artistry is repressed into near non-existence. Such places are soul-searing hell-holes that every programmer should strive to escape (or for the brave: change from within!) Indeed, @dhh implies that he worked in such places and found he was “faking [his] way along in this world.” I completely understand that.
But then @dhh makes his biggest mistake. He equates the professionalism I was talking about in my keynote with those repressive environments. He seems to think that professionalism and artistry are mutually exclusive. That wearing a green band means you give up on beauty. That discipline somehow saps programmer happiness.
But remember what I said when I closed my keynote: “Professionalism does not mean rigid formalism. Professionalism does not mean adhering to beaurocrasy. Professionalism is honor. Professionalism is being honest with yourself and disciplined in the way you work. Professionalism is not letting fear take over.”
This is not a complete definition; but it will serve for my current purposes. Because, you see, I made a big mistake during that keynote. And it is in how we deal with our own errors that the claim of professionalism is most frequently, and most thoroughly tested.
In my keynote I used a metaphor to link hormones and languages. I said that C++ was a testosterone language, but Java was an estrogen language. And then I used the word “insipid” to describe Java.
Now clearly C++ and testosterone have very little in common. My use of this metaphor was an oratory device – a joke. As far as the operation of that device is concerned, it was a success. The vast majority of the audience laughed, demonstrating to me that they were a) listening and b) understanding and c) open.
There is a kind of artistry in making oratory devices like this, and I take a certain amount pride in it. Such devices need to be timed appropriately, delivered skillfully, and used to gauge the audience. They can help to turn virtually any dry topic into a compelling speech.
On the other hand, the construction of this device had a significant flaw. I had equated women with weakness. This was not intentional. I do not think of women as weak. But there it was: Estrogen === Insipid. If you were a woman in that audience, how could you come to any conclusion other than “Uncle Bob thinks women are weak.”
How did I make this error? Lack of discipline. I did not test this keynote adequately. I should at least have run it past my wife! I mis-engineered my art! (Or perhaps my engineering was artless <grin>).
Within minutes of concluding my talk, the complaints appeared on twitter. Women who had been offended and hurt by the remark were tweeting their dissatisfaction. Some men were joining them.
There were two ways I could have responded to this. I could have asserted that these people were just being too sensitive; that they should have realized that this was just an oratory device and that I didn’t mean any harm; that they should just recognize me for who I am and not get so hung up in their own fears and values.
But I think that reaction would have been unprofessional. Why? Because it would have been dishonest. The truth was that this was just a stupid mistake. I built the device badly. I executed the device without testing it properly. I screwed up; and I needed to own up that. So I immediately tweeted apologies to those concerned and ate an appropriate amount of humble pie.
The reason I told you this story (at the risk of sounding somewhat self-aggrandizing) is so that I could use it to help define professionalism. The construction of my oratory device was unprofessional. I should have tested it better. I should have realized the danger of using gender comparisons and taken greater care with their use. I could have done better.
We professionals aren’t prefect. We all make mistakes. We recover from those mistakes by owning up to them as mistakes. We do not cover those mistakes by claiming that everyone else is wrong.
Confronting your mistakes and taking appropriate action is a discipline. It is a discipline of honor and self-honesty. It is a demonstration that we do not let the fear of our own errors take us over.
Comments
Avdi Grimm 13 minutes later:
Well said. Something that DHH still doesn’t seem to grok is that some of the most prominent artists and rock stars in this world are deeply professional people. The members of U2, for instance, areprofessional musicians in every sense of the word. That doesn’t make them any less artists.
Tim Harper 27 minutes later:
Bob, thank you for not creating a dichotomy between what you say and what you do :)
@Avdi – I like what you said about U2. It’s so true – Rock stars are professional, in that in order to succeed, they must consistently meet expectations from their fans, such as, call me crazy, showing up for a concert on time.
http://www.openmakesoftware.com/blogs/seanblanton30 minutes later:
I agree completely.
I’m a creative and social person with deep technical training and skills. I always strive to be a professional of the highest order.
I find it surprising that such misunderstandings and fundamental discussions around professionalism are happening, but clearly they need to. I guess I was born into expectations of high-levels of professionalism, given that my father was a US Marine officer.
Personally, I do get depressed if I stay in rigid engineering environments too long because of my personality, but not everyone is that way. In fact most people in IT are not that way.
And, gender sensitivity in language is not simple or easy. It was part of our freshman writing class at Columbia in 1987. What I learned has contributed to my professionalism ever since. Still, I may have missed the one that bit you!
David Brady about 1 hour later:
I agree with @avdi: well said.
I’m seeing a lot of this lately, the false dichotomization of dualities. Professionalism vs. Artistry shouldn’t be a dichotomy. We don’t even just need both professionals and artists. We need people who are both.
Good professionalism can provide the stability to climb higher, while good artistry can provide the agility to make the climb. But it’s very easy to focus instead on how evil professionalism leads to beaurocratic gridlock and evil artistry leads to ruinous technical debt.
If we have mastered artistry or professionalism but not both, that’s not a pinnacle to be defended; it’s a great starting point.
Phil Booth about 1 hour later:
I think this article is great and really gets to the core of what software craftsmanship is about, for me.
One thing though. Please tell me that the perfect/prefect misspelling was intentional, it is hilarious in that context.
TheOtherScott about 1 hour later:
“We professionals aren’t prefect.” Or perfect even :)
Ricky Supit about 1 hour later:
It takes a big man to admit his mistakes…
You are a big man…. uncle bob.
===========================================
“The only man who makes no mistakes is the man who never does anything. Do not be afraid to make mistakes providing you do not make the same one twice.” T.Roosevelt.
Tim Connor about 1 hour later:
Even if I don’t agree with all of your talk, I have to say, well done on a forthright apology. I wasn’t there, but it’s nice to contrast this with the gogaruco porn blowup and see how just making an honest apology upfront can avoid a painful trainwreck of a tangent that takes away from the original issues.
Kelly Robinson about 1 hour later:
It’s posts like this, and the professionalism behind all of the content here, that keeps bringing me back to read this blog. Everybody makes mistakes, to deny that is just plain silly. But it takes a very big person to admit them. Thanks very much Uncle Bob.
Giles Bowkett about 2 hours later:
You are so wrong. DHH gave you a gracious way out of being wrong. My blog is just like “This guy’s an idiot, let’s set him on fire and throw him out a window.” DHH’s like, “this guy’s very persuasive, but he misses a point.” You just told the GOOD COP to go XXXX himself! What were you thinking? You’re wrong as wrong gets. Just accept it like a man.
Also, YOU XXXXXXX XXXXXXX, I was NOT offended or hurt by your sexist remark, and I don’t think any of the women were either. I think they were INSULTED. That’s a big difference. Classifying objections to insults as people being “offended” or “hurt” is IN ITSELF insulting. I’m not trying to beat a dead horse here, but it sure seems like every time there’s a sexist remark there’s a guy who makes it even worse with his unpology.
I’m sure you’re a decent guy in other ways, but that’s some condescending bullshit and I don’t appreciate it. Own what you did. You insulted people. You did not hurt them or offend them. You insulted them. It has nothing to do with their sensitive feelings. It has to do with your failure to follow rules of modern etiquette. It borders on law-breaking, because if you were doing it on the job, you’d be in a dangerous grey area.
Anyway, going back to the main topic, I’m sorry, but anybody who disagrees with me AND DHH AND Yehuda all at the same time is probably just an idiot. That’s just how it works. If you don’t know that, all the professionalism in the world will not be able to help you. I’m glad you’re connected enough to that old-school world to be able to make friends with Chad Fowler and name-drop Ward Cunningham, but you got nothing.
Your keynote was all style, no substance. Terrific delivery, wonderful flow, but your conclusion was false and many of your assertions were false as well – both technical assertions about Smalltalk and cultural assertions about programming in general.
That XXXX XXXXXX, dude. It was awful. I don’t mean to make this personal, but I have to tell you, I’m going to be more skeptical the next time Twitter explodes saying “everybody has to see this.” Nobody needed to see that, and certainly not me.
Ted about 2 hours later:
Giles, sometimes you just need to shut up. Now is one of those times.
John Goodsen about 2 hours later:
I will be unfollowing gilesgoatboy on twitter after this spewage of sewage.
Kirk about 3 hours later:
A translation of Giles Bowkett rant:
” Uncle bob you’re mean! I HATE YOUR FOR CRITICIZING DHH! DHH and Yehuda are my heroes! DHH is never wrong! “
I guess that Giles is hugging his DHH poster right now. Srsly.
Huh about 3 hours later:
Giles you nit-wit, an insult is intended to offend. So if you are insulted you are offended. Give me a break. You are just like the other arrogant weasels. Fuck off.
James about 3 hours later:
Giles: why did you have to inject your childishness into this? Nobody mentioned you or your silly fallacious rants. Seriously: please learn to put together a coherent argument before spreading your drama diarrhea everywhere.
Huh about 3 hours later:
Giles you nit-wit, an insult is intended to offend. So if you are insulted you are offended. Give me a break. You are just like the other arrogant weasels. Fuck off.
Gaboto about 3 hours later:
I really like many things you said in that keynote. But you should not say that Smalltalk have been killed, becase it is not true. SMALLTALK IS NOT DEAD!
Gaboto about 3 hours later:
Smalltalk is not dead!!!!
Philip Schwarz about 3 hours later:
Hi Bob,
I must admit that at the very moment you made your faux pas I could not believe my ears.
At first I thought I had to accept that maybe you had just revealed some new aspect of your personality (new to me, who only knows your twitter/blog/dead-tree persona).
But then I noticed that when you said insipid, and the unsavoury sillogism demanded cold logic’s attention (Java = Oestrogen AND Java = Insipid THEREFORE Oestrogen=Insipid) you continued as if nothing had happened, so I thought it was just possible that you were unaware of the implications of what you said, or more likely, that you thought the best way to handle the mistake at that point was not to emphasise it in any way, and therefore to quickly move on.
Anyway, although (in deference to the esteem in which I hold you) I did not let the event spoil the talk for me (e.g. the opening was just brilliant), I did push the question ‘did he really mean it?’ onto a stack and am now glad this blog post allows me to pop it off and let the garbage collector dispose of it.
Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum, and since your apology suggests you are not a repeat offender, I am glad there is nothing diabolical about your syllogism.
Keep up the great work.
Eirik about 5 hours later:
Giles: go play on the motorway.
Eric Mill about 5 hours later:
“I’m sorry, but anybody who disagrees with me AND DHH AND Yehuda all at the same time is probably just an idiot. That’s just how it works. If you don’t know that, all the professionalism in the world will not be able to help you”
Giles, I don’t mean to sound rude, or insulting here – but are you currently in the middle of a manic episode? I have, quite literally, been around friends in a manic episode and they sound quite a bit like you. Unbelievably egotistical, moderately incoherent, a certain dangerous freneticism. You honestly do not sound sane. What is going on?
PJ Hyett about 5 hours later:
I have to agree with the others Giles. If you’re gonna be a dick, at least relegate it to your own blog.
Yossef about 6 hours later:
Well put. I’m extremely disappointed whenever I see people equating professionalism with being in a suit and tie and an office. Professionalism is about doing what’s right, and sometimes suits and ties and offices are on the other end of the spectrum.
I hope the next topic involves flying pigs.
Mark Nijhof about 6 hours later:
I have enjoyed the keynote very much, I personally did not really notice the mistake, but by doing so you have double proven the need for testing :) Completely agree with the (Professionalism == artist) I like to think of good beautiful code as a piece of art, when something is just as it should be it is something to be proud of, you want to show it to your college’s so yes both trades should exist in the same person.
I have seen you do the doctor impersonation before but this time it was really perfect.
It is a shame this post is flooded with comments about something irrelevant.
John Schult about 7 hours later:
Giles Bowkett is an artist, musician, Ruby developer, acid freak, activist, Burner, entrepreneur and explorer.
They left out douche bag.
I consider myself a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants. Perhaps from such a lofty height, Uncle Bob might not look that big.
Name dropping? Really? Maybe it’s time for some Abilify.
Philip Schwarz about 7 hours later:
Uncle Bob,
You said:
Every engineer is an artist, and every artist is an engineer. Every engineer strives for elegance and beauty. Every artist has the need to make their art actually work. The two are inextricably tied. You cannot be one without also being the other.
On the one hand, it could be argued that one reason why an engineer is fundamentally different from an artist is that while many artists believe in“Art for art’s sake”, i.e. that the intrinsic value of art (and the only “true” art) is divorced from any didactic, moral or utilitarian function, probably only a few engineers would take their quest for elegance and beauty to such extremes.
But then on the other hand, in recent discussions about software craftmanship(e.g. here, here and here), I have seen expressed the following belief: “We believe the code is also an end, not just a means”
Bil Kleb about 8 hours later:
My father is an architect (the Christopher Alexander kind). He always describes it as a blend of engineering and art. Unfortunately, he convinced me not to follow in his footsteps as he witnessed our legal system suck the joy from it with odious specifications.
Mark Knell about 9 hours later:
> We professionals aren’t prefect.
Nice.
It’s remarkable how many people get into definitional tugs-of-war over “professionalism” without citing the original, technical (if you will) meaning of “professional”.
Classically, if your vocation doesn’t have an professional organization, government licensing requirements, and a code of professional ethics, among other things, you’re not a professional. Plumbers are; coders aren’t. In my favorite example, consider the deep amont of dry humor in the phrase “oldest profession”. It’s a jab at doctors, lawyers, and clerics as much as at… well, you know.
At least etymologically, an appeal for professionalism is an appeal to become establishment, institutional, blessed by the powers that be. Culturally (though perhaps not politically) it’s conservative. I don’t know that Uncle Bob intends this, but if so, this is not what Agile needs.
Craftsmanship, yes; ethics, of course; Marick’s Artisanal Retro-Futurism x Team-Scale Anarcho-Syndicalism, very possibly. Speechifying and invective… hmm.
Giles Bowkett about 10 hours later:
Giles, I don’t mean to sound rude, or insulting here – but are you currently in the middle of a manic episode? I have, quite literally, been around friends in a manic episode and they sound quite a bit like you. Unbelievably egotistical, moderately incoherent, a certain dangerous freneticism. You honestly do not sound sane. What is going on?
Dude, I appreciate your concern, but I’m pretty much like that all the time.
Since so many people objected to my comment, let me rephrase it.
I hated Uncle Bob’s talk, I thought it exhibited a very low standard of logic and insight, although of course, yes, getting people to test if they don’t test is a worthy goal. And I’ve found Uncle Bob to have a very good sense of humor regarding my outbursts, and I have to give him credit for that. I actually apologized a while ago (personal e-mail) for the cursing him out and all that.
And I think the fact that he sees criticism from people like DHH, and yes, in my egotism, me, ought to be a sign. Especially when you factor in the criticisms from James Robertson and the Smalltalkers who comment on James’s blog. People who know Smalltalk and work with Smalltalk were saying things like (and I quote) “Uncle Bob’s got to be too smart to actually believe what he’s saying, doesn’t he?”
I hated the talk. I mean I just absolutely hated it. I just thought it wasAWFUL. Those of you who are still mad about that will be pleased to hear I’m taking time off from my blog and time away from Twitter so I can avoid all these Ruby community flame wars for a while. Enjoy the break. I know I will.
Joseph Beckenbach about 20 hours later:
Hmm. I’ve met many who believe in a dichotomy between artists and engineers/professionals, on both sides of this distinction. Some revel in it. And in doing so, all have, in my experience, let slip away much of their effectiveness and impact.
It’s not just because artists need to make things that work, or professionals things that fit well into the world. It’s because beauty and function are two intertwined aspects of the same world. Not so much two sides of the same coin, as two halves of the same whole. Christopher Alexander’s work “On the Nature of Order” delves into this in great detail. It articulates much of what I learned while training to be a research scientist, and why the great researchers were so great. And why we researchers (great and not, experienced and not) liked so much to sing, draw, craft doodads, and play with our math, our equations, our lab gear, and our world.
Sometimes the beauty+function shows up as art, sometimes as efficient programs, sometimes as a few words which pivot perceptions onto a wholly new and exciting track. Sometimes it’s just an excuse for a smirk, or a bathroom break, or a war-story told over a beer at the pub. Sometimes it’s a mix of several, like many pictures of galaxies, or of polarized light coming through thin-sliced rock samples. But it’s always about beauty+function.
And, often, about the wonder and awe of experiencing it. Touching that mystery of life keeps me going.
Jason about 21 hours later:
Giles, you would seem to have a toxic attitude. Based upon your blog posts you have some kernel’s of good ideas but if this is how you handle yourself when someone disagrees with you, you need some real coaching.
I didn’t particularly like Bob’s presentation, but I didn’t like DHH’s either. The Tim Ferriss interview was awful. Big Deal, move one, get a life, solve a problem.
I’ve said this a number of times over the past two years, but this is a great example of why I left rails professionally. Best decision ever. The community itself was the reason. Thanks for reinforcing the decision as the right one.
fsilber about 22 hours later:
Saying C++ is the language of testosterone and Java is the language of estrogen is a good analogy. C++ is daring and dangerous; Java is cautious and responsible. I think the error was in calling Java insipid. It’s just not quite as good as Scala - or even C# - which were built on Java’s lessons learned.
That’s not to say that women aren’t insipid. Some women do lean that way (e.g. those women behind the movement to reject Switzerland’s ideology of the citizen-soldier), to the same extent that some men lean towards criminality.
occassional reader about 23 hours later:
“As testosterone affects the entire body (often by enlarging; men have bigger hearts, lungs, liver, etc.), the brain is also affected by this “sexual” advancement; the enzyme aromatase converts testosterone into estradiol that is responsible for masculinization of the brain in a male fetus.”
Looking forward to seeing you play with this in your next speech.
- G.
Thomas about 23 hours later:
Anyway, going back to the main topic, I’m sorry, but anybody who disagrees with me AND DHH AND Yehuda all at the same time is probably just an idiot.
I am sure uncle Bob won’t dare to disagree with all THREE of you in the future.
That’s just how it works.
Nothing works that way.
If you don’t know that, all the professionalism in the world will not be able to help you.
Are you trying to say the world works by agreeing with you?
Adam M 2 days later:
While they both require imagination, art and engineering are not the same.
Art is about beauty and expression. Engineering is applying knowledge to solve problems.
I find it frustrating when people label a visually appealing work of engineering as art, like a bridge, elegant code, or an iPhone. Doing so is insulting the work instead of praising it, as if art is a higher form of labor. Art is folly, while engineering is survival.
Gaboto 2 days later:
SMALLTALK IS NOT DEAD!!!!!!
Giles Bowkett 2 days later:
You’re all wrong (except Gaboto).
Who hits the apex of professionalism in music? The Pussycat Dolls. There’s nothing there but professionalism. Someone else writes the songs, choreographs the dance moves, and buys the clothes. All they do is show up on time, dance the moves, and sing the songs. They’re very professional, and I’m sure some of the people they work with respect them for that, but who respects them as artists?
The counter-argument goes, yeah, but that’s not what Uncle Bob is saying. Uncle Bob is saying we should all combine artistry with professionalism. But again he’s completely wrong. Read “The Wisdom Of Crowds.” The groups that act most intelligently on aggregate are the ones that incorporate the widest range of intelligence. In other words the best way to heighten the intelligence of a group is to add stupid people (assuming that group already demonstrates collective intelligence effects, which all open source projects do; there’s a chapter of detail in the book). Obviously adding intelligent people also helps – but the point is simply that diversity is more valuable than professionalism, and a community which includes nimrods who never test will do better than a community made up only of the TDD elite.
There are reams of academic research backing this up. I didn’t bother going into that in my outburst because I really don’t feel this discussion merits that much consideration or courtesy. It’s a load of horseshit and the honest thing is to call it a load of horseshit. But if you insist, yes, I can point to substantial research that demonstrates why it’s a load of horseshit – or at least, one of the very many reasons.
Also, I’m sorry, but with Aimonetti we got, “I apologize that you’re too sensitive to be cool about something that doesn’t matter.” With Uncle Bob we get, “I apologize, and look! That makes me awesome, and that awesomeness proves my point about discipline!” When are we going to get an apology with no strings attached? When is somebody going to fuck up and just be like, “whoops, sorry”?
I could offer up my own apology to Uncle Bob over swearing at him, but the minute I do we get to the wonderful land of “I’m sorry, and that validates my blog comment.” Enough of this faux civility. If you’re going to apologize so you can claim you’re right, or you’re couching condescension in your apologies, it is better to just swear at the other person, because at least it’s honest.
So, I’m sorry, but fuck you all, and you can eat my balls (except Gaboto).
Giles Bowkett 2 days later:
By the way, if you want to know how to misappropriate the gratitude and goodwill that apologies automatically engender so that you too can pass off self-aggrandization as logic, you should check out Robert Cialdini’s book Influence. It’s an eye-opening book, and one of the things it’ll open your eyes to is the staggering amount of misdirection and manipulation in Uncle Bob’s presentation style.
Rob Bowley 3 days later:
Somewhere in his childish ravings Giles may have a point but unfortunately it’s lost on me and anyone else who prefers civilised debate.
Thankfully I’ll never have to work with him so I can find it all mildly amusing.
Jason Gorman 3 days later:
Crikey. Is everyone in the Rails community this highly-strung? ‘Cause that’d kill it for sure.
Jon 3 days later:
It’s hilarious that Giles is going to take a break from the Ruby community flamewars, when most of them are waging in his own head. And Bob’s keynote style lacks substance?
Where’s the substance in your “presenter of the year” Ruby Fringe talk, Giles? Give me a break.
Steve Py 3 days later:
Everyone’s entitled to an opinion. This whole “discussion” proves the point of the value of diversity. The simple message is “use yourbrain.” Listen, agree, disagree, comment, reflect, and if you choose to follow blindly, or pave the way to the brave new world, don’t feel bad, but don’t let it go to your head either.
Giles hits the nail on the head about what “professionalism” means. It’s not about engineering vs. artistry, science vs. religion. Professionalism is about diong what you do, and doing it well. Software developers will ALWAYS be polarized between artistry and engineering, fact and faith. The concept of “professionalism” should not be leaning to either camp over the other.
The ultimate goal of any professional software developer should simply be “how can I do this better?” It’s not about what tools you use, or what techniques you use, it’s how you expand, combine, and re-combine the sum of your knowledge to deliver better, faster, or whatever characteristics you feel are important to your project/team/client.
And if you can do that without flinging insults and F-Bombs around at anyone that chooses differently, all the better IMO.
Schmoe 5 days later:
I’m trying to understand the logic here…
Uncle Bob says: “professionalism vs. artistry is a false dichotomy, you can be both professional and artistic at the same time and one does not preclude the other.”
Giles says (eventually): “professionalism is less valuable than diversity, so…” what?
So what? So we shouldn’t want professional people in our supposedly diverse collection of developers? Seems to me that if diversity is such a great thing, then including some professionals in a sea of unethical, untrustworthy bastards would increase the diversity, and thereby be a good thing overall. So I guess that means that Giles is, by his own admission, a fan of professionals?
Professional Nimrod 7 days later:
No, no, no—you are missing the point.
Diversity is important—unless you differ with Giles and DHH andYehuda. Then your opinions are worthless.
Diversity is only good when we all agree.
Derek Smyth 8 days later:
Concepts like artistic and professional are never black and white because they are very subjective.
Being artistic and being professional is not mutally exclusive as uncle bob says; of course you can be both.
However @dhh has a point in that some people are more artistic than professional.
Both blog posts together suggests a balance is needed.
Either the two are balanced in the individual as uncle bob suggests or balanced across a team as @dhh says.
Derek Smyth 9 days later:
Ah yes back again….
“Professionalism does not mean rigid formalism. Professionalism does not mean adhering to beaurocrasy. Professionalism is honor. Professionalism is being honest with yourself and disciplined in the way you work. Professionalism is not letting fear take over.” – Uncle Bob
Thats the key statement.
Professionalism to many is ‘adhering to beaurocrasy’ and ‘rigid formalism’ and thats what I thought (yeah ok I admit hadn’t watched all of the video) professionalism was meant when reading the post.
It’s what immediately jumps to mind.
‘adhering to beaurocrasy’ and ‘rigid formalism’ qualities are what some organisations regard as being professional. The shirt and tie organisations; the in by 8am organisations; the anal retentive organisations.
It’s in organisations like these the ‘traditional’ professional and the artists are easier to seperate.
Mr Uncle Bob it was a pleasure watching you work.
Adam Sroka 21 days later:
The dictionary defines a profession as “An occupation in which one has a professed expertise in a particular area; a job, especially one requiring a high level of skill or training.” It’s imprecise enough to be exactly useless.
I like the word “Craftsmanship.” We’ve been throwing that one around for a few years now and I like everything about what it implies.
“Professionalism” on the other hand, denotes nothing useful and carries with it some unfortunate connotations. Professionalism could mean simply doing one’s job deliberately and ethically. Professionalism also carries an association with traditional professions like doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. And in that latter context it brings all sorts of baggage – licensing bodies, rites of passage, complex rules of professional liability, long arduous licensing procedures generally requiring years of pre-job training, etc. None of those are things that this community needs.
That is not the context in which you are using “professional,” As is clear from your definition. However, the association is inevitable and the word brings no additional value to the conversation.
Madhu 23 days later:
Hello Uncle Bob,
A well written blog on engineers and artists. Yesterday I started to read your book on ‘Agile Software Development’, and I am a big fan of your style of writing – simple but to the point. You are the best person to talk about artists and engineers.
If it interests you, I have written a blog on similar lines – http://eclipse-info.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-would-we-have-been-if-computers.html
Regards,
Madhu
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse