Comments for Antipatter http://antipatter.com The Web, The Business, The Smoke and Mirrors Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:28:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Comment on I.T. Organizations Considered Harmful by Scott http://antipatter.com/2009/08/i-t-organizations-considered-harmful/comment-page-1/#comment-83 Scott Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:28:38 +0000 http://antipatter.com/?p=291#comment-83 This is a fantastic synopsis of the situation in most companies. I think that you have every point correct. The one point I would add is that I.T. needs some marketing promotion help. Typically they are staffed with really bright folks who are largely unknown. A business unit should want that talent on their projects! This is a fantastic synopsis of the situation in most companies. I think that you have every point correct. The one point I would add is that I.T. needs some marketing promotion help. Typically they are staffed with really bright folks who are largely unknown. A business unit should want that talent on their projects!

]]> Comment on Learn or Die by kevin http://antipatter.com/2008/09/learn-or-die/comment-page-1/#comment-12 kevin Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:33:43 +0000 http://antipatter.com/?p=169#comment-12 i'd go a step further and say continuous learning with/without the help of your employer is essential to both your personal progression and your marketability professionally. And the web provides an excellent, cheap place to keep up-to-date on just about anything. but no one is going to do it for you. but loren, does this mean I have to go back and relearn java though :P i’d go a step further and say continuous learning with/without the help of your employer is essential to both your personal progression and your marketability professionally.

And the web provides an excellent, cheap place to keep up-to-date on just about anything. but no one is going to do it for you.

but loren, does this mean I have to go back and relearn java though :P

]]> Comment on Virtual Teams, Real Value by Shubhranshu http://antipatter.com/2008/08/virtual-teams-real-value/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Shubhranshu Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:45:03 +0000 http://antipatter.com/?p=141#comment-11 Indeed a very informative write-up about remote working. I believe that mentioned problems like lack of trust and feeling of separation can be countered by better communication and regular monitoring. To know more about getting most out of a remote worker, one may visit http://outsorcerer.com/blog/?p=21 also. Indeed a very informative write-up about remote working. I believe that mentioned problems like lack of trust and feeling of separation can be countered by better communication and regular monitoring. To know more about getting most out of a remote worker, one may visit http://outsorcerer.com/blog/?p=21 also.

]]> Comment on Virtual Teams, Real Value by Sue Massey http://antipatter.com/2008/08/virtual-teams-real-value/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Sue Massey Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:30:52 +0000 http://antipatter.com/?p=141#comment-9 Great post. I will read your posts frequently. Added you to the RSS reader. Great post. I will read your posts frequently. Added you to the RSS reader.

]]> Comment on Two Pizza Theory by Two Pizza Theory http://antipatter.com/2008/07/two-pizza-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Two Pizza Theory Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:56:19 +0000 http://antipatter.com/?p=43#comment-8 [...] Original loren [...] [...] Original loren [...]

]]> Comment on Thinking in Concurrency by Anonymous http://antipatter.com/2008/07/thinking-in-concurrency/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Anonymous Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:44:02 +0000 http://antipatter.com/?p=27#comment-7 Check out http://www.multicoreinfo.com for a large collection of multicore resources. Check out http://www.multicoreinfo.com for a large collection of multicore resources.

]]> Comment on Single Point of Failure by loren http://antipatter.com/2008/07/single-point-of-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-6 loren Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:40:42 +0000 http://antipatter.com/?p=14#comment-6 @Lon I like how you frame the idea as a "higher-order" bus test. I think you may even be treading on a deeper issue - too often systems are treated as one time investments that are allowed to fester, rather than the builders accepting responsibility of ongoing maintenance of an automated business process. Business processes evolve and require people to keep them alive - automation doesn't change that basic fact. @Lon I like how you frame the idea as a “higher-order” bus test. I think you may even be treading on a deeper issue – too often systems are treated as one time investments that are allowed to fester, rather than the builders accepting responsibility of ongoing maintenance of an automated business process. Business processes evolve and require people to keep them alive – automation doesn’t change that basic fact.

]]> Comment on Single Point of Failure by Lon http://antipatter.com/2008/07/single-point-of-failure/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Lon Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:21:57 +0000 http://antipatter.com/?p=14#comment-5 The bus test is one that comes up in regular conversation around my office. Designing a system that passes the test is not that hard, once people keep the idea in mind. Which is easy enough when the boss (me) says it ad nauseum (I do). Now, the harder part, is about getting system architects to think about higher order bus test. That is, not whether the system can run after key people are bus-ed (ouch), but whether or not the software maintenance can occur. This is something about ensuring knowledge of maintenance and code expansion. A simple way to wrap one's head around the problem is by asking "what would it take to replace a developer?" For instance, if a system is based on a key technology that almost no one knows, and there is only one guy in the company who knows it. And he gets bus-ed (again, ouch), how system may not crash that moment, but it has transformed into a ticking time bomb. This is a problem most companies face in legacy systems that use legacy technologies. The bus test is one that comes up in regular conversation around my office. Designing a system that passes the test is not that hard, once people keep the idea in mind. Which is easy enough when the boss (me) says it ad nauseum (I do).

Now, the harder part, is about getting system architects to think about higher order bus test. That is, not whether the system can run after key people are bus-ed (ouch), but whether or not the software maintenance can occur. This is something about ensuring knowledge of maintenance and code expansion.

A simple way to wrap one’s head around the problem is by asking “what would it take to replace a developer?” For instance, if a system is based on a key technology that almost no one knows, and there is only one guy in the company who knows it. And he gets bus-ed (again, ouch), how system may not crash that moment, but it has transformed into a ticking time bomb.

This is a problem most companies face in legacy systems that use legacy technologies.

]]>