John,

Starting from your point then, where would you place all of those items we'd perhaps consider intangibles? That part of the psyche where we create something new by taking two, often disparate thoughts / functions / features, combine them into some new, cool software gizmo? I think we need to encourage each other in their creation but remember that customers could care less.

When we apply those tools is where your point comes into play.

For example: I have been thinking about a way to deliver tasks to the user for their attentions. While I'm thinking this through, creating my prototype, testing it and so forth I have to deliver a real world solution. That means I need to focus on what works now. However, at the same time I'm thinking how I'd like things to work and planning on a change as I am able.

The "new cool gizmo" has to work as well or better than the current solution in place but in my example I'd sure like to use the new feature. Often I get ideas like this as a direct result of my interaction with others and this is where I see developers often get into trouble. They think their customers will get as excited as they do over these new gizmos. The customer could care less. They just want something that will work and help them save $$ by increasing their productivity.

Among ourselves though I think we should encourage the "Blue Sky" stuff, if only to help keep ourselves fresh with respect to our profession/craft.

DD's Rule #1: If your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep is your downfall.

Businesses are in the business of making money, not slobbering over some new feature or being used to gratify the psychological needs of we developers.

Best,

DD




>Hi Al...
>
>Your point is well taken. However, you also have to remember that what we do is not a pure science. Rather, it is a business endeavor. We are not splitting atoms or finding the secrets of DNA structures. We write data-based business applications. As my partner in crime Rod likes to say, "It ain't open-heart surgery here..."
>
>To think we do anything more than this is a tremendous overstatement. Put another way, while the guy doing the job may view himself as a sanatary engineer, to the outside world, he is a garbage man.
>
>
>
>>>
>Have to disagree with ya here. A session can be techically correct but impractical. I think the best speakers are those that approach it from a *real world* perspective. App design sessions are a classic case. Change orders, user signoff, etc are great ideas but not always practical. I want someone up front who can offer real alternatives and that really only comes from experience.
>>
>>Spoken like a true engineer :-) (I am one - B.A.Sc. Mechanical). I'll play devil's advocate, and argue that you're neglecting the crucial role of pure research here. For example, if Dr. Dave was to give a blue-sky session in my area, I wouldn't miss it.
>>
>>Pick up an issue or two of Scientific American. Not much practicality there, but the writing is superb, and you'll gain insight on technologies everyone will be using 5 to 10 years from now.