Develop your own software

I read the article "discipline behind art-Interview with CEO niit of India" recommended by Ling Hu in the morning. To be honest, I personally do not quite agree with Meng Yan's opinion in this article, the comments of Roy and Zhou xingduo later are quite interesting-although the comments of Zhou xingxiong are a little funny.

The view of royal is close to the popular "blue-collar software". He thinks that the "above" (that is, the management layer) problem has been solved, and the "below" (that is, the developers) is not the problem. I seriously disagree with this idea. Software development is a kind of creative work. In this respect, it is not exactly the same as the construction of the building (generally considered to be closer to the design process of the building ). There is no reason to say that the bottom-layer developers in India are generally at a low level, so they are more suitable for this development model.

However, "When we complain that we cannot see a great building, please do not shirk all our responsibilities to" Migrant Workers ." It is similar to my opinion in the article "human parts management and history of China: programmer Yu Zhuan.

The ant colony system said by Zhou Xingxing is indeed very similar to the situation in India. However, Zhou Xingjian believes that the level of development personnel in India is poor, but I think the level of development personnel in China is also uneven, or "the quality of educational products is relatively discrete ", in some ways, it is not as good as India's "educational product consistency", although our average level may be higher than them. In such a poor talent market, it is inevitable to make minor or minor achievements. In addition, although many domestic developers are indeed better than India, however, it is undeniable that some of the worse ones actually think they are better, which will have a more negative impact.

But in general, both views have their own principles: Royal thinks the problem is "above" because we "above" are not as well managed by Indians; zhou Xingxing believes that the problem is "below" because the "below" is better than the Indians and cannot be managed as India. As Ling Hu said:

This is actually a bit philosophical. Just like the XX doctrine, some people say this is good. Some people say that this is good. In fact, it is okay to see how to implement it. Everyone is exploring some things and there is no absolute right or wrong person.

In short, the path to India is not feasible because of different national conditions.

It is impossible to build a path. You need to find out how to proceed. Now our XX doctrine is slowly moving forward, and this software model started a little later.
In short, we must "stick to the characteristics of China ".
Grandpa Deng said, Well, if you feel the stones crossing the river, you can make a mistake. You can make some cities (enterprises ?) The pilot will do.

In fact, this idea should be available to many software companies, but it is easy to go wrong. The problem lies in those who are doing pilot work. Each leader has his own set. He tries to explain it in disorder.

Well, this issue can be a big problem, not the software industry issue.
However, changing leaders is not the focus, but the focus is on changing the system. This involves the question about governing the rule of law. If the system is designated by someone rather than the company's whole cognition, it is always a problem.

Rule of law is king. 8. In China, the rule of law has the rule of law. The problem is that even governance is not good. So I wrote "History of software and China: A Historical View of History" to discuss how to take a good path to governance in the current environment. I personally think that since we cannot change the environment of such a person's culture, we have to succumb. This may be a better way to develop our own software.

Ending with a famous saying that is often quoted on Mop: Life is like rape. If you cannot resist, close your eyes and enjoy it.