Strength of thinking

What does a person think when he sees such a passage:

The process of scale is not only an infinite progress, but also an infinite endless form of transition from quality to quantity, from quantity to quality, but at the same time, there is no limit to integrating itself with the other party. Quality and quantity are initially in the opposite position as something and other things in the scale. However, the qualitative potential is the quantitative, and vice versa. So when the two transition to the other in the development process of scale, each of these two rules only replies to what they already have. Therefore, we now get the existence that the provision has been denied and is generally abandoned. this is the essence. The potential of a scale already includes its nature. The development process of a scale is only to implement the potential things it contains.

 

I think there are two possible responses: one is that this person is talking nonsense, and the other is that this is an abstraction, And the expressiveness is not very good. I don't quite understand it. However, once we know that the person talking about this passage is gönger, no one will feel confused, but will feel that they are not enough to think about it.

Like Einstein, there was a clear theory of relativity, but they were indeed thinking about something and looking deeper at the same thing, what is behind this is actually the strength of thinking.

 

Why is there no half-cent relationship with the average person?

The most critical aspect of what programmers do is abstraction, which is dependent on the strength of thinking. Too many people are addicted to techniques now. I think this is wrong. We can know how to use hadoop and how to use it well. We can also know how to use openstack and how to use it well. We can also use smart phones and use it very well. However, as long as there is still a lack of strength in thinking, I am afraid it will be difficult to create or create these things, and they will not integrate very exquisite products.

 

I feel that the status quo is a bit strange. On the one hand, there is a product that is highly competitive from Alibaba, while on the other hand, people cannot find a proper job.

 

This may be understandable. For most people, eating is the most important, so the skills related to eating are the most critical. Therefore, it will be a bit more popular to deal with books like interview. However, this idea will cause negative consequences. Low-end programming skills are easily outdated. When there is a lack of essential cognition and a lack of height, you cannot be professional in a specific field, it is easy to become a physical activity if you cannot do the work in your professional hands. Once you become a physical activity, it is easy to eat youth meals. It seems that the story is extremely simple, which is hard to crack.

 

Where is the way out?

I personally think it is a little difficult to look at, select a specific field, think about it, dig deep into it, and become a real expert. This expert can be located in many places, such as technology, management, and softwares. Of course, if you want to start a business, that is another story.

 

Why is there a big picture? Because there is no overall picture, the fields you choose may be "inflation. It takes three years for you to become proficient in MFC, and it may not produce much life value. Without a big picture, you can also let yourself depreciate in the eyes of others and become a "crazy" and "Strange birds ". Here, I can see Wang Yin. Recently, I saw a blog post about my work experience over the past six months. I always respect those who can think independently, but after reading this article, I am a little worried about this brother. I always feel like this is a crazy "prelude ". You can't come up and look at it. This company is really silly. It's actually such a stupid way to do things. I can't say that what Wang sees is wrong. I can only say that what he sees is incomplete, like a blind person touching an ear, and then he judges his ears with his own cognition. This is not to push forward his thoughts. For example, coverity is a test-driven task, which seems silly to Wang, but the more essential problem is that, if you do not do so, quality will not be stable in projects that involve multi-person collaboration, when collaborating with multiple people, we should try to have visible means (including processes and tools) to make the quality not bumpy, relying on the talent quality level will be very bumpy, but for the company, the bumpy, therefore, he can only use this seemingly restrained approach to genius. If the brother Wang is following this idea, he may be struggling in the company. The code in the company is a continuation of the business. Maybe he is more suitable for open-source communities.

In order to avoid the above problems, we actually need to do a bird's eye view of the business around us. Once a bird's eye view is done, it is inevitable to look at many things by accident.

 

I have always felt that programmers have three fundamental options for the future: one is pure coders, and the best way to do this is in the field with high value-added, instead of simply fighting in the field of information management systems, one is code farming + management, and the architect class is here. The last one is pure management. The product manager and department manager are all in this direction. I don't think there are too many differences between the three types. It's not easy to do well. The key is to have a strong mindset and think about the work itself to reach a high level. Let's talk about management in detail.

The management of this activity is easy to degrade to the people who just cook and drink and exercise their power. Common scenarios are: The boss has a command, the answer is done immediately, and then press down. It is also easy to become a good guy, what to say below, to convey to the previous, the next boss love to listen, anyway, you do not understand the technology.

However, this is actually a dereliction of duty. Managers should comprehensively consider the goal and the scene. The human and engineering factors are the most critical decision makers in development. On the top, the manager is the site; on the bottom, the manager is the direction. This requires a holistic approach to the software: Is the software measurable? Estimate the current precision? To what extent does the document need to be written? Is the Requirement Description enough? Do you want a waterfall model? For such vague questions, managers should be able to give a clear answer based on the field conditions. It is easy to do these things. Most of the time, they can be confused. But it is not easy to do well. You need to have your own perspective and understanding of software development, this kind of understanding is also in line with the actual situation. However, if you do not do well, you can judge it.

For example, the company suddenly says that quantitative management is required, and managers who don't think about it will do it immediately. managers who are thinking about strength may experience the following process:

Software is a kind of Fixed Thinking → the essence of thinking is concept and logic → concepts and logic cannot be directly measured and precise measurements → A lot of subjective judgment is required in the measurement process → target-oriented, personal-centered quantitative management (related incentives and punishments) will crash → judgment based on unambiguous data (function complexity, etc.) will become an auxiliary measure for programmers to evaluate.

After realizing this, we will find that the bug rate cannot be measured, and the ambiguity is too large. This idea will go on and even find cmmi4 ~ Level 5 thinking is a bit problematic. In this way, you can express your opinion. In the end, I am afraid that he will be wrong, and I am afraid that my boss will deny it. In this way, your own capabilities will grow. Without such a strong mindset, people will be more like robots, what others say, or insist on something obviously wrong.

 

No matter in that direction, if you want to be an expert, you must have an independent perspective and a strong mindset. This is like putting an extra pair of eyes on your mind, in this way, you can see your own things, and then in practice, the height may come out. In this way, you can make your own framework and propose your own ideas.