λ - programming

stupid as fuarrrk. especially at "languages with professional experience" where it's

level 0: Imperative or Object Oriented

level 1: Imperative, Object-Oriented and declarative (SQL), added bonus if they understand static vs dynamic typing, weak vs strong typing and static inferred types

level 2: Functional, added bonus if they understand lazy evaluation, currying, continuations

level 3: Concurrent (Erlang, Oz) and Logic (Prolog)

DDoS this soykaf down please.

maybe it's bullshit, but it's a comprehensive lists of skills to master and expectations for someone like me who couldn't be considered as a programmer yet.

>>11403
Getting mad at it won't fix it.
This is how people in the industry view programmers and programming in general.
If you want to get a job, you'll need to know this shit, even though it may seem ridiculous to us.

>>11405
>This is how people in the industry view programmers and programming in general.

>some random indian
>an authority on what people want in the software industry.
Who exactly is this guy and why should we care what he says? There's dedicated questions about IDEs and compilers for christ sake. This isn't about the industry at large, because not every language even uses these things. It's about his shitty interview rubric that he (wrongly) feels is important enough to use it to speak for everyone else.

>>11406
>>11405
>>11404

There is no "comprehensive list of skills and expectations".

There's Computer Science. That's all. None of the things in that list is related to anything else in it, and the concept of "levels" make no sense. And describing concepts in terms of the languages that implement them make no sense either.

If you're looking for something new to learn, this matrix is a reasonable place to pick a new topic from but, as others have said, it's not really that useful or accurate as a ranking of ability.

I'm not sure how many of you have ever worked in a professional environment or talked to someone who does.
This is actualy what people believe is important/relevant.
They don't care wether you can build a compiler, they just want you to modify the sales figures in their database, producing code that anyone else can maintain, so you're replacable.

>>11410

No, what you are talking about relates to things like Agile or UML that are strictly the domain of "Software Engineering". You never ever view Computer Science concepts through the lens of vocational programming as the author does. You always go from the formal and theoretical to the practical. Doing it the other way around leads to nothing but failure.

If he had purely listed, hierarchically, on how high a level a person had worked in programming teams for example, in terms of how large the code base was and how obtuse the methods used to manage and maintain it I wouldn't have beef with him. But as it stands it just makes no sense at all.

>>11410
>It's more Industry centered, which makes it pretty worthwhile to check it out.
It's centered around a specific industry that tries to keep it's programmers short-sighted, replaceable and disrespects their work.

>Level 0: Doesn't know what lainchan is.
>Level 1: Occasional reader.
>Level 2: Can post replies and refresh threads.
>Level 3: Can identify own posts as "shitposts".

You wouldn't score anyone on this ridiculous scale, yet the same is supposed to be acceptable for programmers (and their salary)?

What should I do? I hate people like him and the system he works for. But there's not much I can do about it.

>I've found that there've been a few categories, where I ended up being Level O, because I didn't pass Level 1, but the higher level criterions applied to me.
Give no fuarrrk. This guy thinks that 'git' is a skill that builds on 'svn' and that adding license headers is the highest form of organization.

>>11412
>What should I do? I hate people like him and the system he works for. But there's not much I can do about it.
Probably the easiest way of changing this fuarrrked up system is founding your own company with sane standards and treating your employees like intelligent human beings.

>>11402
I've seen this before. I disagree with it.

A guy like that would probably call Chuck Moore a bad programmer.

Also,
>>11413
Just be a contracted programmer.

>>11410

>they just want you to modify the sales figures in their database, producing code that anyone else can maintain, so you're replacable.
http://www.loper-os.org/?p=69

>>11408
>and the concept of "levels" make no sense
This is the most important point. There is no order to software topics. It's more like a graph, a collection of nodes and paths between nodes. That's why using bibliographies and following HTML links feels so less structured than a textbook.

>>11410
>This is actualy what people believe is important/relevant.
You don't need half of that to get a job.

>>11417
>http://www.loper-os.org/?p=69

Who wrote this soykaf ?
>[...] This is because a herd simply cannot innovate, whether for fun or for profit. Every innovative work of mankind has been the product of one – sometimes two, rarely three – minds. And never the work of a herd. No mathematical theorem, no enjoyable novel, no work of art of any importance, have ever been produced by a herd. I fail to see why innovative software ought to play by a different set of rules.

Does he know what the LHC is ?
I suppose it may rank among the greatest achievements of our history and it was a common project of over 1000 scientists. That's slightly more than an individuel.

>>11434
Its not an Innovation though.

>>11434
>>11439
He's especially wrong about mathematics.This idea that all great scientific discoveries are made only by lone geniuses going against the rest of the world is a myth created by Hollywood. The fact is most advances in science are made by groups (notice how rarely now nobel prizes are awarded to a single recipient), and even when they are not, they rely on work made by other peoples.

By the way, this is the reason Perelman refused all those prizes. Not because he was an eccentric lone genius, but because he was being sold to the public as an eccentric lone genius when in his view he merely collaborated with/improved on he work of other mathematicians.

>>11449
Innovative ideas are something different from inovative things.

I think the first really come from a small group of people, if not only one. It is harder to think in a very focused way with too many heads.

But about innovative physical things, any big project need lots of people. One of these last nobel prizes had a problem that the fairest winner would have been "the LHC community", not really a person. But that gives less marketing.

Perelman also had the problem of the chinese that tried to prove him absolutely won and get all the credit. He was not about the credit, but that broke his faith in the morale of mathematicians. I think the case for Grothendieck was similar.

>>11434
>>11439
>>11449
>>11450
I think the point to take from this is that innovation doesn't increase with man hours. Only individuals can accomplish things, because only individuals can do things. Innovators do rely on previous work, but that doesn't mean a swarm of people is going to generate solutions to hard problems. The wisdom of the crowd doesn't scale.

>>11411
>>11412
I laughed because you guys are right.

>>11456
The point is exactly the opposite of what you're saying?

>>11461
>The point is exactly the opposite of what you're saying?
Reread it.

>>11417
>http://www.loper-os.org/?p=69
There's so much seems off about this. I really think the guy is just twisting the situation to try to explain it in a way that favours lisp but really all he does is present it in a bad light. Imo, the actual reason lisp isn't popular in business is the same reason Java is popular, a feedback loop of everyone using/learning/writing libraries for Java causes Java to be used. He touches on this briefly with the "library problem" but handwaves it as circular reasoning, which a feedback loop, while circular, is not. That lisp wasn't what took off in business in the first place is mostly just bad luck. I mean it's not like Java got the position based on merit.

>It amazes me just how blindly complacent programmers have been in the face of the ongoing and very successful deskilling of their profession
No. No, we were not blindly complacent in the face of people making it easier to write code. We were the people doing it. Things being easier is a good thing for everyone.

That businesses would choose the option that allows them to replace people is presented as a bad thing, but really it's just pragmatic. They are going to need to replace people. Also the whole thing hinges on the idea that it's harder to replace a Lisp programmer than a Java programmer and I don't think that's correct (beyond the obvious, feedback loop caused, volume thereof). Lisp code isn't any more difficult to maintain than Java even if you didn't write it.

I can understand being mad at the fact that the arts (it's an art to me) and business don't really mix that well and the artists end up boxed up like this, but that's always been a reality across many professions. There was no need to start dragging languages into this and shoehorning it to fit. It's just got nothing to do with it.

>That businesses would choose the option that allows them to replace people is presented as a bad thing, but really it's just pragmatic.
So, you let your way of expression, and with it the ideas and insights you gain and the "art" you'd create, be dictated by some entity called "businesses" whose only concern is how to make the most money?

I don't like to live in such a world, and one should protest this kind of treatment.
The way it goes this "profession" is simply devalued into some form of labor,
and the only thing this industry does is gladly bending down.

But recently it has been getting somewhat better at least,
I think simply because true brilliance will prevail, and even these businesses will see value (aka. money) in it.

>>11467
>So, you let your way of expression, and with it the ideas and insights you gain and the "art" you'd create, be dictated by some entity called "businesses" whose only concern is how to make the most money?
No. All that does not necessarily follow. They get to dictate how I spend the time that they paid for. Insights and ideas are far outside of their reach.

>I don't like to live in such a world
I can understand that, but changing the world seems a little outside of the scope of this. For an individual business irreplaceable people are, sooner or later, going to cause big problems and I can totally understand why they'd want to avoid that.

>one should protest this kind of treatment.
That depends. If we're talking the idea of having to work for a living or general economic model or whatever, sure that's fair, but specifically programmers don't get it any worse than anyone else out there. Hell, right now I pity the musicians competing with autotune.

>The way it goes this "profession" is simply devalued into some form of labor,
Same with every profession. Like I say, we are the ones doing this devaluing and it's a good thing. If we get to the stage where a child can do what I do, for instance if we made an AI that you could just ask to write a program for you, I'd consider that the pinnacle of programming. Yeah, sure I'll be out of a job, that is an issue with our current economic system, but amazing AIs that do everything for you is a plus for the world as a whole. On a lesser scale this is why we invented high level languages and stuff in the first place.

>and the only thing this industry does is gladly bending down.
This is something. The industry is fuarrrked in a lot of ways from bad languages to bad practices, but I don't think not wanting people who write code that only they can maintain is one of these ways. Hell, I wouldn't even want to write code like that. I mean I get hit by a bus and everything I've built just slowly becomes useless?

>I think simply because true brilliance will prevail, and even these businesses will see value (aka. money) in it.
There is always going to be room for brilliance. By definition it does amazing things and, yeah, businesses will profit from that given the chance (that's basically what they do), but don't expect them to rely on it. There's just not enough brilliance to go around. We need the people who never really got it and for whom it's just a job to pump out the tons of crap code that keeps the whole industry going (I mean we don't really, but again that's outside the scope of this). This won't impact heavily upon the brilliant.

>>11474
>They get to dictate how I spend the time that they paid for.
In the past this may have been true (with real labor), as the means of production where in the hands of the businesses,
but with programming, those means are in your hands (or rather in your brain), and in your control.
Why one would give this control over to someone I don't understand.

>Insights and ideas are far outside of their reach.
This is what you tell yourself, but in the end you are doing the work for someone else according to their wishes.
Working in a specific frame can severely limit your expression, and as such the ideas you form may get limited.
This is also not only a Problem of computing language.

>and I can totally understand why they'd want to avoid that.
I understand too. It's only logical for them.
But just because it is logical for them doesn't mean you have to play according to their rules.
You are giving them the upper hand, even though you are doing the work.
Only a fool would play his cards this way.

>but I don't think not wanting people who write code that only they can maintain is one of these ways
This is just wrong. The problem is that this could (not necessarily would) create code that is only maintainable by skilled professionals.
Who could use their value to make any form of demands (maybe even social!), which is something that is not allowed to happen in the eyes of businesses.

>Like I say, we are the ones doing this devaluing and it's a good thing.
You may not have understood what I mean with value in this case.
Value in my eyes is not about how much money a person makes per hour or whatever.
But rather something akin to the intrinsic value a piece of art has!
For example an AI that automatically can program would have immense value for humanity and the art of programming as a whole!
We could finally start working on some more important problems!
But the way it currently goes is that the whole industry is treading in waters of mediocrity,
choosing this path since they are scared of demands by those who actually create (and don't just shuffle around virtual colorful paper)!

>>11479
>the means of production where in the hands of the businesses,
The means of production has always been in the hands of those producing, physical or mental makes no difference. It was then as it is now.

>Why one would give this control over to someone I don't understand.
Because, really, it is a little thing and I must eat.

>in the end you are doing the work for someone else according to their wishes.
And that means they get access to my ideas and insights? No, they are outside of the reach of anyone but myself.

>Working in a specific frame can severely limit your expression
Well, that depends on how you look at it. The stuff that I produce at work isn't going to be worth anything to me, it was never what I wanted to make in the first place, but this doesn't limit me outside of work at all. Sure the time that I'm trading away for money is gone but that was always the deal. The idea that this is incredibly limiting to me and I'm somehow holding myself back (or more so than I would be in any time consuming job) simply isn't the case. I can still work freely on my own stuff and it's that that is my expression, not the stuff I do for pay.

>This is also not only a Problem of computing language.
Most of this has little to do with programming at all, we're talking more about selling your time.

>But just because it is logical for them doesn't mean you have to play according to their rules.
I write software that is easy for anyone to maintain because that's part of what good software is. Deliberately writing subpar code for no other reason than to artificially inflate my perceived worth in the eyes of employers is not something I'd do with a clear conscience.

>You are giving them the upper hand, even though you are doing the work.
Not really, if you're smart you'll work together and it will go well for everyone. Businesses aren't entities unto themselves, they are collections of people and unless you go and sign up with some global conglomerate (I'd advise against it), most of them are alright and genuinely care about their employees. They're not my enemy, I don't really have to worry about giving them the upper hand. The fact that it also means I can leave without screwing over all of the coworkers and friends I'd be leaving behind far outweighs that.

Continued.

>>11481
>Who could use their value to make any form of demands (maybe even social!),
This is an art, not a weapon. I'm not going to try and hold society to ransom with my skills. First of all it's not going to work, second I don't think I'd sleep so well at night. Right now, this automation is causing problems everywhere and the soykaf is slowly boiling over as there are less and less jobs (just wait 'till drivers get obsoleted). This is going to affect everybody and it's going to require big changes to sort out. Trying to forcefully and selfishly carve out a niche for ourselves in the current way of things is just short sighted.

>But rather something akin to the intrinsic value a piece of art has!
I don't get this. We were talking about the value that the profession has and how it could be devalued to labour. Sure the AI would have massive value but it would make the profession of programming practically worthless. It would still have value to me as a hobby of course, but we were talking about the profession. Like I say I don't see what you're getting at.

>But the way it currently goes is that the whole industry is treading in waters of mediocrity,
It will remain this way. They aim for mediocrity and they hit it pretty surely. It's very rare indeed that anything special comes from business and it's usually the work of one brilliant person who also wants to make money. This is fine, they grind out the crap and it puts food on the table. Meanwhile the brilliant keep doing their thing with little concern for the money. I actually kinda like this, sure an economic system where I can happily work on my own stuff all day would be nice but like I say that's a little outside the scope of "what should I do right now". In the meantime, being able to turn my art into something that pays better than standing behind the counter at McDonalds just means I have to spend less time working (just about to finish a 2 year break) and I'm certainly not going to deliberately do a bad job in an attempt to get paid more.

data structures Level 1
algorithms Level 1
systems programming Level 2
source code version control Level 2
build automation Level 3
automated testing Level 0
problem decomposition Level 3
systems decomposition Level 2
communication Level 3
code organization within a file Level 2
code organization across files Level 3
source tree organization Level 3
code readability Level 2
defensive coding Level 0
error handling Level 2
%%fuarrrrrrrrk, this thing is longer than the longcat itself%%
IDE Level 2
API Level 1
frameworks Level 1
requirements Level 1
scripting Level 2
database Level 1 %%Excel sheets actually are databases%%
languages with professional experience Level 2
%%I'm very tired of this crap, rate me lainons%%

>>11403
>>11488 agrees with you. "blogs" section is soykaf . Why should I listen to talking retards? I have no time for them, I would better listen to Touhou arranges.

>>11481
>>11482
>I don't get this. We were talking about the value that the profession has and how it could be devalued to labor.
I don't really understand what you are not understanding (it's probably a problem of unclearness of natural language), but I'll try to explain it maybe a little more clearly.

Why is programming a thing?
We need to solve specific problems, and through the need of such solutions the profession of a "programmer" was born.
So the value of this profession came originally from the need of it.
People then started to realize how fun programming can be with its myriad of possibilities and ways to express oneself (and such).
They recognized the (intrinsic) value of programming as an "art".

Now you have given the example of a programming AI, and stated that such an instrument would devalue the profession.
It could be seen that this would in turn devalue the profession as there would not exist the need for it anymore,
but if you think of it not as your personal value (aka. how much money can I make working in this profession), but rather as a value for humanity, this AI would have an immense value!
And in another way this programming AI would have another Dimension of worth, namely it's (intrinsic) value as a program itself.
Such a Fabrication would unbelievably extend the human Knowledge.

What one shouldn't forget is that this is a theoretical construct, and doesn't really have much to do with the topic at hand.

On a side-note, I think automation is the ultimate goal of any profession, but that doesn't really matter here.

>I'm not going to try and hold society to ransom with my skills.
Well this is your bad, as someone else is going to hold "society to ransom" with whatever tools he has, and he may have not the best interest of this society in mind.
I don't like the fact that it is necessary as well, but sometimes it is simply necessary to have some kind ransom, or otherwise you and what you believe in may get fuarrrked over by someone who simply doesn't care about you, or your beliefs.

>The means of production has always been in the hands of those producing.
Wrong, the workers couldn't simply legally start working without the consent of the one who holds the tools and fabrication.
In programming this is absolutely possible, and I wonder why it isn't done more often.

>Deliberately writing subpar code
This is what is happening on a lot of fronts for the sake of the myth of "maintainability".
The truth is though that great and innovative code can be written in a way that is also naturally maintainable,
but because the replaceability of the creator may in turn suffer, we are rather getting code that is sub-par in a lot of ways for the sake of replaceability.

>Because, really, it is a little thing and I must eat.
The implications are bigger than you may realize.
>It will remain this way.
Yes, because people will simply follow... but hopefully not forever.

>>11490
>People then started to realize how fun programming can be with its myriad of possibilities and ways to express oneself (and such).
Whoa, wrong way round. The art came long before the practical applications, see Lovelace and co.

>rather as a value for humanity, this AI would have an immense value!
Well yes but the profession (as distinct from the art) of programming no longer would, neither for money or for value to humanity.

>I think automation is the ultimate goal of any profession
Then why are you attempting to inhibit it here? You want me to write code that requires more skilled maintenance. That is not something that aids the automation of such tasks.

>but sometimes it is simply necessary to have some kind ransom, or otherwise you and what you believe in may get fuarrrked over by someone who simply doesn't care about you
The be a dick to them before they're a dick to you strategy? Like I say this is short sighted. We're in the process of obsoleting the need for work, across all fields, we don't need to make sure that we still have it.

>The truth is though that great and innovative code can be written in a way that is also naturally maintainable
Right, we agree there.

>but because the replaceability of the creator may in turn suffer
Errm, more maintainable code means that the creator can be replaced. The replaceability of the creator would be definition go up if their code were naturally maintainable.

>we are rather getting code that is sub-par in a lot of ways for the sake of replaceability.
No, like you say you can write good code that's maintainable. I'm not saying anyone should write bad code for the sake of maintainability (or for the sake of job security). Even if you have something that's just plain difficult to understand making it maintainable just means good comments and documentation.

>The implications are bigger than you may realize.
No, they're not, the implications go as far as I wish them to. It's my life and my mind after all. You're going to have to elaborate if you want the discussion to go farther than this. There's a reason that just stating opinions is considered bad form.

>Yes, because people will simply follow... but hopefully not forever.
No, they don't do it because they're just mindless sheep who follow (protip: people aren't actually like that), but because it's safe.

>>11496
>Then why are you attempting to inhibit it here?
I am not,
in a lot of more advanced languages automation and with it abstraction is a key tool to productivity.
Throwing more unskilled people at a Problem will not increase automation, or increase maintainability (often it will lead even to unsafe, unmaintainable shitty code). It just increases the safety cushion of the one paying and replaceability of the workers.
In a lot of cases this automation works on a higher level of abstraction, and thus will be harder to grasp. Meaning a higher skilled programmer will be required to maintain it naturally.

>The be a dick to them before they're a dick to you strategy? Like I say this is short sighted.
You don't have to be a dick about it, just know your worth.
And if soykaf hits the fan, just take a stand instead of being a coward.

>Errm, more maintainable code means that the creator can be replaced.
By just about anyone? No. See above.

>making it maintainable just means good comments and documentation.
Very wrong. Maintainability is an integral part of the structure and design of the program and possibly the language chosen itself!
How well maintainable is a mess of noodly code in comparision to something well structured and cleanly defined (even if the latter may be harder to understand)? Sadly industry practices often lead to the first.
Naturally a good documentation and such is necessary as well.

>No, they're not, the implications...
Go to the Anarchy Thread if you want to discuss this or learn more, it is not really in the scope of this thread.

>No, they don't do it because they're just mindless sheep who follow (protip: people aren't actually like that), but because it's safe.
The reasons don't change the fact that they are following ( I am not trying to be edgy, in fact I often find myself thoughtlessly following conventions as well ).
Naturally there may be a high risk, but only through embracing this risk a better, fairer world may follow.
But again not the scope of this thread.

>>11501
>In a lot of cases this automation works on a higher level of abstraction, and thus will be harder to grasp. Meaning a higher skilled programmer will be required to maintain it naturally.
Right, more difficult code requires more skilled people, that's a reality, but it doesn't change that deliberately attempting to make the code more difficult doesn't help anything but your job security.

>You don't have to be a dick about it, just know your worth.
I do, but I don't feel the need to artificially inflate that worth through underhanded methods that ultimately just cause people problems (which would be being a dick).

>And if soykaf hits the fan, just take a stand instead of being a coward.
Taking the future as it comes, even if that means you are not needed, seems less cowardly than attempting to ensure that society is unnecessarily dependent upon you.

>By just about anyone? No. See above.
All else being equal it would mean they were replaceable by more people.

>Very wrong. Maintainability is an integral part of the structure and design of the program and possibly the language chosen itself!
Don't take that out of context. I said if you already have something that just naturally happens to be difficult to understand. My point was only that things need never be dumbed down to aid maintainability (it does happen, it shouldn't). Not that terrible code with good documentation is maintainable.

>Go to the Anarchy Thread if you want to discuss this or learn more, it is not really in the scope of this thread.
I'm laughing. We weren't talking about society or any of that, we'd established it was beyond the scope. We were talking about my artistic expression and I had assumed your implications related to that. Fair play with the larger implications, we can both be glad that the world is changing, but, for now, I must eat.

>But again not the scope of this thread.
Alright, you know let's clarify what we are arguing. I just want to be clear because it does seem that maybe we're talking past each other. Is it your position that we should deliberately write code that unnecessarily requires more skilled maintainers?

>>11502
>Alright, you know let's clarify what we are arguing.
Most of what I am arguing is already established under that loperos blog in some form or another,
I think that dude is right in many regards (although he may seem a bit too extreme in general).

>requires more skilled maintainers?
Yes, as it is natural in some sense that higher skilled programmers will produce better code

>unnecessarily requires more skilled maintainers?
No. Better code is always necessary in my opinion.

>Taking the future as it comes, even if that means you are not needed, seems less cowardly than attempting to ensure that society is unnecessarily dependent upon you.
I don't think you grasp what I mean.
The replacement through automation is not the same thing as replacement by other workers.
replacement through automation is a natural consequence of the advancement of a "profession" (or whatever you want to call it).
This is good!
Building a system so that a creator (or in this case called a worker), is easily replaceable by others only serves the one who decides who gets replaced!
The individual has in turn no leverage against the one providing the work and this could lead to an unjust system (unrelated to this topic)
Apart from that this established system, at least in the realm of programming, leads to a degeneration of coding as an artform (as we don't find individualism in a system where everyone is replaceable), and an engineering profession (as this leads to bad code practices).
This is bad...

I don't care if I get replaced.
I do care if the system is build to replace workers.
On another note;
Taking your stand against issues you don't agree with is not cowardly,
but in a system where you may be simply replaceable it is often futile.

This doesn't mean that building a system where you are irreplaceable simply for this reason is a good practice.
But as you can see above, this system is not only unjust, but also bad for programming as a discipline; It's double bad!

I think I have made myself clear enough.
If you still disagree or whatever, just keep these thought in your head, and maybe one day you will understand.
I do understand your position; Yes sometimes it is easier to just wrap yourself in the comfort of your job,
but sometimes doing the right things means losing this comfort and security.

>>11506
>The replacement through automation is not the same thing as replacement by other workers.
The two go hand in hand. Automation is a slow process where things become easier and easier increasing the number of people who can do a job and making people more replaceable. For instance where once we needed talented musicians, with autotune, we now need anyone who can hold a guitar. The same applies to code, we've built these languages and libraries and all sorts of tools meaning that less and less skilled people can produce better and better results.

>Better code is always necessary in my opinion.
We're not talking about better code. More difficult to maintain does not imply better and better does not imply more difficult to maintain. I'm asking if you think it's right for programmers to deliberately write unnecessarily hard to maintain (by that I mean hard to maintain for no other reason than this) code in order to make themselves less easy to replace?

>Building a system so that a creator (or in this case called a worker), is easily replaceable by others only serves the one who decides who gets replaced!
And it serves the creator if he wants to be able to leave his work behind and the whole rest of the world if he dies. It's actually better for everyone if people make things that don't require them specifically to function.

>The individual has in turn no leverage against the one providing the work
Of course you do. You get the same leverage any worker does and, as you've noticed, trying to make yourself more valuable by being irreplaceable is actually just making you less valuable in their eyes due to this. You won't increase your leverage this way.

>I do care if the system is build to replace workers.
A system that wasn't would be far, far worse. Workers need to be replaced, people die or quit their jobs or whatever. We have to be able to accommodate for that or we're just building bad systems that can't cope with reality.

>this system is not only unjust
This isn't unjust. If you write something that nobody but you can maintain that is actually a totally fair reason to think that your work is bad. It is a legitimate problem with your work that is going to cause real issues sooner or later.

>but also bad for programming as a discipline
No, it isn't. Sure inside of the context of business it's pretty bad but outside it continues just the same. The discipline is not being hindered or damaged by the businesses and their bad practices.

>If you still disagree or whatever, just keep these thought in your head, and maybe one day you will understand.
Really? C'mon. What did this add to the discussion other than being condescending? People who disagree with you are not just in need of reflection.

>Yes sometimes it is easier to just wrap yourself in the comfort of your job,
Jobs aren't comfortable. That's why they pay you for it. I don't know your situation that you can afford to not work, but many are not so lucky. When faced with the prospect of starvation or hours spent doing something to put food on the table why not pick the programming option? The idea that businesses are all faceless monsters just out to make money isn't actually true in reality. Most people in business are decent people.

>but sometimes doing the right things means losing this comfort and security.
There isn't some moral imperative for writing code that only I can maintain, nor for refusing to work in the business side of programming.

>>11511
>Really? C'mon.

It means I am done arguing with someone who doesn't want to understand. Someone who is trying to rationalize the fact that he is being mistreated in the thing he does most of his waking life.
My post is clear enough, the only thing you can now do is disagree..