Software development requires human care

In my spare time, I started reading the software craftsmanship of Pete McBreen. Just a few pages, I vaguely felt that my views on some issues were surprisingly similar. I disagree with some people's comments on the so-called "disruptive" in this book in software engineering, as the author pointed out in the "Repositioning Software Engineering" section: "software processes are not a substitute for software engineering, it is a supplement to software engineering... for small teams, the technical approach will be more appropriate, because we can believe that excellent developers can assume the responsibility for the entire project development and maintenance... if a project requires more than 50 developers to spend more than two years, the project should adopt the software engineering method."
Considering software development as a craft, software developers may be able to resonate with each other. In the final analysis, the participants in software development are a group of flesh-and-blood people, not machines. Considering software developers as "people" and looking at software development from the perspective of human nature may be more appropriate, only by focusing on people, the so-called principles in software engineering can be found so ridiculous. The book describes how to deliver high-quality products to customers as much as possible to maintain their own reputation, this is why the author explains why software development from the technical point of view can produce the fundamental points of products that satisfy customers. However, the author seems to confuse the craftsman and the company with two different entities. Anyone knows that the craftsman is a specific individual, and the company refers to a collective or institution. From a personal perspective, everyone cares about their own image and others' comments on themselves. However, when many people gather together to form a company, the situation is different. It seems that everyone is protected in the "Company" shell, and all the names are borne by the company, you just need to leave the company alone. In fact, the idea of "Hope to be recognized by others" in human nature is still deep-rooted, but when there is a chance to escape criticism, the laziness and luck in human nature jump out again. Therefore, with the company's shell as a shield, people lose the motivation to maintain their own image. I think this is the key factor that affects the success or failure of software, that is, the sense of responsibility (whether it is for your own reputation, or for those more noble things) is the key to the "person" element in software development.
I fully agree with the "apprenticeship-technician-craftsman" learning model described by the author. After all, software development is a craft and experience needs to be inherited from generation to avoid repeating the same mistakes once and again. In Craftsmanship, the older the craftsman is, the more valuable it is, the opposite of the concept in the field of software development. If we only look at older developers from physical strength and energy, they are indeed inferior to the younger generation. However, from experience, these older craftsmen are undoubtedly worthy of their treasures, if you give advice to these old craftsmen, I am afraid you will not take many detours.
The book uses technology as a metaphor to return to the main body of software development-people, improving developers' way of thinking. As a software developer, you should not regard yourself as a gear in a machine, and repeat mechanical "physical labor" every day. Instead, you should complete your work as a creator. Software development is a craft that skillfully integrates art, science, and engineering. Therefore, software development should have fun. Otherwise, the development process is wrong.