Suppose you worked for a generic software production company, which employed certain programming practices and methodologies. You are called upon to produce a program, which will link up with others in the company''s current product release (a resource-management section of an RPG, for example). What if you were to follow the industry-accepted methods of programming and came out with a listerine-clean piece of code, and your supervisors told you to revise it? Worse, what if the code they suggest is not the best for the output, or even wrong? Do you listen to them, since they are operating over you, or do you go against the grain and stand your ground, risking being fired? I would figure this kind of thing does not happen today. Am I wrong? Thanks for your time. -slippers2k Attack life''s problems like a Subaru... with all four wheels

neither really, your project manager should be professional enough to recognize that you are the developer and he is the manager...because of this he should see that the product meets the system spec and requirements...if he wants you use his code instead of yours in an already developed piece of code, try to find the faults in both pieces of code, and respectably tell him your new solution with integrating both,(even if you are not adding his at all) Or on the other hand tell him that it would be more profitable, time effecient and in the end make him look better to his superiors if you could use your implementation because it uses a more robust design..and has better code reuse etc,etc..but do so in once again a respectful way..

Just remember in the end ask yourself when coding something is this time efficient, is it reusable, and can it be modified easier. Cause when push comes to shove those are the only thing that matters to your company..

-Lucas

Just a note to add:

Never go against the grain if they tell you that you are wrong...keep in my that you are the coder, and possibly not the lead developer, they have a set of Requirement specifications and design docs that they must follow, and these often change during the development process with that comes the hassle of redoing code just because someone does not like the output...so re-code if that is what they want..If you aren''t already and it sounds like you are not because you have a "manager" over ya, when you are a lead developer or architect with out a doubt you will be telling the developers under you to change things because it is not correct...

let me know what you do, i am curious to learn the outcome..

-Lucas

Thanks for the info Lucas, just a hypothetical situation, I am arming myself for the future.

-slippers2k

Rather an odd question when you examine it carefully because there isn''t really a winable situation. If you change the code you have not done you job (to make good code) so you failed. However if you don''t change the code you have not done your job (do what the comapny ask you) so you failed.

It is really an issue of pride. I was faced with an example of this when someone told me to change some work that was finished as per the design specified by the client. The project itself was late and not yet finished so making changes like that would only further delay the project.

It boiled down to him wanting it changed regardless of what the client wanted just based on his own preference. He was the manager so he had the right to demand changes but he was not the designer so he should not have been interfering in the design.

I told him he was wrong, told him why and then made the changes. I had the pleasure of being there when the client complained about the change

Dan Marchant
Obscure Productions

Hm I think there''s a fine line with "doing the job you''re paid to do" and "taking charge of an obvious mistake".

Obviously, doing the minimum amount of required work (i.e. wearing the minimum number of pieces of flair ) will mean you don''t waver from what is considered the standard employee behavior. But at the same time, it could mean recognition, bonuses, advanced status in your job, enhanced responsibilities, and so on (if your company follows such practises). In today''s world, this sort of career doesn''t sound too common.

I would pick and choose my battles carefully; if you don''t particularly care about your job or employer (or if you "work for a paycheque" as opposed to "maintain a career") then why become a zealot or revolutionary? Cover your ass, keep your head down, and do your job. Alternatively, if you are inspired to work diligently for your employer, then by all means, do your utmost to complete projects with accuracy and commitment.



MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.cjb.net