There's a hell of a lot of wisdom in the collected software development body of knowledge. It's a shame that a lot of that knowledge seems to have been wiped from recent working memory.
I'm a little bit sensitive to this. This morning I received a 55 page 'requirements document' from my management-appointed senior software engineer (whose background is in forestry). It amounted to little more than a very complex relational database schema and some algorithmic pseudo code. I then spent 4 hours via phone and email trying desperately to explain why those weren't requirements. His forceful rebuff: his approach had worked in the past, so it should work again. I didn't blame him - he just didn't know what he didn't know.
I've worked with some damn good programmers who had little knowledge of computer science or software engineering. They've been awesome at cranking out some (even clean) code, and they're some of the smartest people I've ever met. But, software is hard, the breadth of knowledge is vast, and just being a good programmer doesn't cut it.
People, no matter how much prior training they have, are going to invent their own ways. Some will be hits and some will be misses. In your case, it sounds like a miss, but if your manager has had prior successes, he is inclined to disagree.
Some people believed the Ruby on Rails "magic" was the worst violation of software engineering to ever exist, while others felt it was the greatest advancement in programming to date.
No viewpoint is wrong, because there is no such thing as right.
> No viewpoint is wrong, because there is no such thing as right.
"2 + 2 = 5"
"do mutlti-threaded reads and writes to a shared mutable data structure and you absolutely never have to worry about race conditions, clobbering or corruption"
do you still think all viewpoints are equal and none are right?
Absolutely, assuming you are not trying to take my quote out of context. You can do whatever you feel is best.
Take, for example:
做多线程读取和写入到一个共享的可变数据结构，你绝对不会担心竞争条件，会破坏或腐败
Maybe you can grok that, though chances are that you cannot. It is still just as valid for someone to believe it is an efficient method of communication though, even if you disagree.
Generally accepted patterns can be useful, but it takes people pushing that envelope for us to evolve.
As many have notes in the past, 2 + 2 does equal 5 for sufficiently large values of 2. Marking it as an absolute falsehood merely indicates an insufficient knowledge of various areas of mathematics.
I'm a little bit sensitive to this. This morning I received a 55 page 'requirements document' from my management-appointed senior software engineer (whose background is in forestry). It amounted to little more than a very complex relational database schema and some algorithmic pseudo code. I then spent 4 hours via phone and email trying desperately to explain why those weren't requirements. His forceful rebuff: his approach had worked in the past, so it should work again. I didn't blame him - he just didn't know what he didn't know.
I've worked with some damn good programmers who had little knowledge of computer science or software engineering. They've been awesome at cranking out some (even clean) code, and they're some of the smartest people I've ever met. But, software is hard, the breadth of knowledge is vast, and just being a good programmer doesn't cut it.