One thing that has bothered me lately is the mislabeling of concepts. Let me explain with an example:
I've got a Porsche. It's a good little car, but not what I would really expect with the name "Porsche". I tell my friends that I drive a Porsche and they are all impressed. They think that I am hot shit and I agree with them: Yes, I am hot shit. If something goes wrong, I read about how to fix my Porsche and what helpful suggestions other Porsche owners have. However, these suggestions have not been very helpful: I usually end up finding my own solution for the problem. Did I mention that it doesn't perform as well as the Porsche dealer said it would? I'm not exactly happy and am thinking about switching back to my old Ferrari. And the weirdest thing about my Porsche? It says "Ford Focus" at the back. Weird.
...
Yes, that was a long winded example. My point is no matter what you have, it's in your best interest to describe it as best you can. If you're calling it something that it isn't, any help you seek won't be as relevant as if you had just described what you actually have. If everyone is on the same page with an accurate view of the current state of affairs, you're more likely to make productive progress.
Hey, are you talking about me?
ReplyDelete;)
This reminds me of a really bad Japanese Zombie movie I saw called Junk (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0273302/). The entire movie the guy keeps on talking about his Porsche, and then at the end, he drives away in his Corvette. One of the most blatant mistakes i've ever seen in a movie.
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not talking about you Aleks... not yet...
ReplyDeleteI'm just venting my frustrations and being somewhat crypic at the same time. ;-)
Yeah, what the hell are you talking about? :)
ReplyDeleteOkay, let's try another example. Any parallels with my life are pure coincidence.
ReplyDeleteLet's say that I am using a developement methodology called "PX". Everyone in the software field says this is a great thing if you follow the following steps: 1) write tests 2) code standing up 3) only wear blue.
Now, since we've all heard that "PX" is a great way to program, everyone says "we're doing PX development" and everyone is happy because we're "cutting edge" and this is supposed to make software cheaper.
Now here's the kicker: we don't 1) write tests 2) code standing up or 3) only wear blue.
Now, we know that something is off because we're not getting the benifits promised by "PX" developement. People are looking at PX developement and saying "wow, that sucks... I thought that it would pay off better than it is. Maybe we should switch to 'PUR' developement..."
It helps no one if you just talk the talk. You must walk it too.