Yes, it's exactly that attitude he is arguing against. Then it falls to people who know what they're doing to clean up after the "just get it done" morons, when it turns out just getting it done means getting it done wrong and badly and slow. Management thinks "oh, it's already done, speeding it up should be an easy job, what's wrong with our new maintenance guys that they take so long to just fix it up?"
I use the term morons advisedly, it is blunt and true, an accurate description of the "get it done" mentality of people with little experience and no formal training, who don't even know or acknowledge the depth of their ignorance and error.
I didn't read it that way. I also find it ironic that in arguing against self-important people, there is a hell of a lot of self-importance inherent in the post (and yours, too).
The degree (or lack of) isn't the issue. Having a CS degree doesn't make you immune to any of your assertions. What you're describing is just a bad programmer.
I believe the GP's argument is about programmers with CS degrees who don't 'get' simplicity, because they can't validate their own intelligence and qualifications with it. I would never tar all programmers with the same brush, but much like the ignorant 'get it done' guy, there's the ignorant 'flex my brain muscles, fuck everyone else' guy too.
Of course I am describing a bad programmer. Your point is well taken, many programmers with CS degrees are terrible, many programmers without CS degrees are terrible, and there are some good among both.
There are of course many ways to be a bad programmer. "Look how smart I am" is one kind, but I don't worry nearly as much about them because I have found that far more often I am dealing with the "get it done" kind of bad programmer.
It'd be interesting to trace at what point the "look how smart i am" developer turns in to a "get it done" developer, vs drops out of the field.
Or to track how many people might self identify as a "get it done" developer who might be labelled as a "look how smart i am" developer (and vice-versa).
I'm not saying to just 'get it done' because that is really misinterpreting what I said before, I'm saying that the low level, time intensive method is not always the best, especially when you need to push a project soon and time is really running out.
Your insinuation that doing something quickly means doing it badly is, in my opinion, unfounded, being productive and speedy is merely a by product of knowing what you are doing.
Fair enough. "Get it done" is a trigger phrase for me, so I responded in too personal an attack. There are many "get it done" morons out there, and I have worked with several, but that of course does not mean you are one. You recognize the inherent trade-offs involved, which I appreciate.
Surprise, both of you guys are needed! The "get it done" guy, is almost never the "do it right" guy. Some are closer to each other then others... but almost never are they the same guy. The thing is, when you're building that first prototype, the most important thing is getting it out there and proving the concept works! It doesn't matter if you build the perfect architecture that can scale effortlessly if in the end no one decides your product has value.
Of course, I've been that guy who has to clean up too. That job sucks :( almost never is the product designed the way it eventually ends up being used.
I have also been on the side of finishing a new product quickly and imperfectly, and I acknowledge the trade-offs involved. I rail against the "get it done" mind-set in quotes. I find that a programmer who prides themselves on getting it done is, more often than not, a "get it done" moron who means get it done badly. The kind of programmer who thinks "getting it done" means stabbing the code enough times that the bloody wounds congeal just enough to compile. They are not smart or experienced enough to know what they don't know.
I subscribe to "get it done" programming. I've never had the troubles you seem to speak of going back to fix the shortcuts though. Interfaces are, for all intents and purposes, black boxes, so your improvements can always be dropped right in with relatively little effort.
I guess if the codebase is a mess of spaghetti, that is another matter. I do always try to get the interfaces right from the beginning.
I use the term morons advisedly, it is blunt and true, an accurate description of the "get it done" mentality of people with little experience and no formal training, who don't even know or acknowledge the depth of their ignorance and error.