Andrew Cooke | Contents | Latest | RSS | Previous | Next


Welcome to my blog, which was once a mailing list of the same name and is still generated by mail. Please reply via the "comment" links.

Always interested in offers/projects/new ideas. Eclectic experience in fields like: numerical computing; Python web; Java enterprise; functional languages; GPGPU; SQL databases; etc. Based in Santiago, Chile; telecommute worldwide. CV; email.

Personal Projects

Choochoo Training Diary

Last 100 entries

[Computing] Okular and Postscript in OpenSuse; There's a fix!; [Computing] Fail2Ban on OpenSuse Leap 15.3 (NFTables); [Cycling, Computing] Power Calculation and Brakes; [Hardware, Computing] Amazing Pockit Computer; Bullying; How I Am - 3 Years Post Accident, 8+ Years With MS; Collaboration request; [USA Politics] In America's Uncivil War Republicans Are The Aggressors; [Programming] Selenium and Python; Better Walking Data; [Bike] How Fast Before Walking More Efficient Than Cycling?; [COVID] Coronavirus And Cycling; [Programming] Docker on OpenSuse; Cadence v Speed; [Bike] Gearing For Real Cyclists; [Programming] React plotting - visx; [Programming] React Leaflet; AliExpress Independent Sellers; Applebaum - Twilight of Democracy; [Politics] Back + US Elections; [Programming,Exercise] Simple Timer Script; [News] 2019: The year revolt went global; [Politics] The world's most-surveilled cities; [Bike] Hope Freehub; [Restaurant] Mama Chau's (Chinese, Providencia); [Politics] Brexit Podcast; [Diary] Pneumonia; [Politics] Britain's Reichstag Fire moment; install cairo; [Programming] GCC Sanitizer Flags; [GPU, Programming] Per-Thread Program Counters; My Bike Accident - Looking Back One Year; [Python] Geographic heights are incredibly easy!; [Cooking] Cookie Recipe; Efficient, Simple, Directed Maximisation of Noisy Function; And for argparse; Bash Completion in Python; [Computing] Configuring Github Jekyll Locally; [Maths, Link] The Napkin Project; You can Masquerade in Firewalld; [Bike] Servicing Budget (Spring) Forks; [Crypto] CIA Internet Comms Failure; [Python] Cute Rate Limiting API; [Causality] Judea Pearl Lecture; [Security, Computing] Chinese Hardware Hack Of Supermicro Boards; SQLAlchemy Joined Table Inheritance and Delete Cascade; [Translation] The Club; [Computing] Super Potato Bruh; [Computing] Extending Jupyter; Further HRM Details; [Computing, Bike] Activities in ch2; [Books, Link] Modern Japanese Lit; What ended up there; [Link, Book] Logic Book; Update - Garmin Express / Connect; Garmin Forerunner 35 v 230; [Link, Politics, Internet] Government Trolls; [Link, Politics] Why identity politics benefits the right more than the left; SSH Forwarding; A Specification For Repeating Events; A Fight for the Soul of Science; [Science, Book, Link] Lost In Math; OpenSuse Leap 15 Network Fixes; Update; [Book] Galileo's Middle Finger; [Bike] Chinese Carbon Rims; [Bike] Servicing Shimano XT Front Hub HB-M8010; [Bike] Aliexpress Cycling Tops; [Computing] Change to ssh handling of multiple identities?; [Bike] Endura Hummvee Lite II; [Computing] Marble Based Logic; [Link, Politics] Sanity Check For Nuclear Launch; [Link, Science] Entropy and Life; [Link, Bike] Cheap Cycling Jerseys; [Link, Music] Music To Steal 2017; [Link, Future] Simulated Brain Drives Robot; [Link, Computing] Learned Index Structures; Solo Air Equalization; Update: Higher Pressures; Psychology; [Bike] Exercise And Fuel; Continental Race King 2.2; Removing Lowers; Mnesiacs; [Maths, Link] Dividing By Zero; [Book, Review] Ray Monk - Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty Of Genius; [Link, Bike, Computing] Evolving Lacing Patterns; [Jam] Strawberry and Orange Jam; [Chile, Privacy] Biometric Check During Mail Delivery; [Link, Chile, Spanish] Article on the Chilean Drought; [Bike] Extended Gear Ratios, Shimano XT M8000 (24/36 Chainring); [Link, Politics, USA] The Future Of American Democracy; Mass Hysteria; [Review, Books, Links] Kazuo Ishiguro - Never Let Me Go; [Link, Books] David Mitchell's Favourite Japanese Fiction; [Link, Bike] Rear Suspension Geometry; [Link, Cycling, Art] Strava Artwork; [Link, Computing] Useful gcc flags; [Link] Voynich Manuscript Decoded; [Bike] Notes on Servicing Suspension Forks

© 2006-2017 Andrew Cooke (site) / post authors (content).

Programming, Business, Social Contracts

From: andrew cooke <andrew@...>

Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:03:41 -0300

I know of two ways to do programming (for money):

 1 - With a spec, a careful contract, and a pile of lawyers.

 2 - With mutual understanding, respect, and flexibility.

(1) doesn't work and / or is very expensive.  It's hard to avoid people doing
the minimum necessary to get the job done, because there's mutual distrust on
both sides.

(2) is, in my experience, much more productive.  Sometimes you can do more,
sometimes less.  But hopefully both sides understand why the outcome is at it
was, and believe that have the best possible product (not a perfect product,
perhaps, but one that has mutual support, was "value for money", and can
server as a base for future development).

The big risk (from "my side" as a developer) with (2) is that it's not how the
larger world works.  So (2) is often implemented as a gentleman's agreement,
behind a contract framed as a "traditional" project (ie 1).  This means that
the client always has the option to be less than a gentleman, and revert to
(1) if it's to their advantage.

Hence the need for trust.

Recently I had a very bad experience.  I did a major piece of work with the
understanding that it was (2).  The expected collaboration was lacking and I
ended up going "the extra mile" to get something I felt reasonable.  In short,
I ended up being not just the programmer, but also doing the work of the
client-side "expert".

Well, that's life.  And I learnt a lot.

So all would have been OK.  Except that TWO YEARS LATER the client complains
that the system has problems that are my fault.  Issues that I should fix for

Not only that, but when it comes to fix these issues the client still doesn't
have the correct answers.  Instead they want to continue with a progressive,
friendly, collaborative approach where we understand the problem together.
But at a fixed price of zero.

Now don't get me wrong.  The technical problems are real.  I am in complete
agreement there.  But this was work done to as good a standard as possible at
the time.  I already went beyond what was reasonable.

Yes, we can continue to work with (2).  If the client has finally got their
technical act together then it would be a pleasure to fix those issues.  But
it is further work and requires further payment.

Either that, or we go back to (1) which is an aggressive, confrontational
approach, where you give me an exact spec, which I implement (and nothing

But not both.  You can't expect me to be your friend, to work extra hours, to
give 110% to cover your deficiencies, and, two years later, claim we should do
things by the rules.  It's just not fair.  Rules or not, it makes you a bad


Comment on this post