FilePro Programmer Needed

[Fairlight]

With neither thought nor caution, John Esak blurted:
> 
> No, disagree again. Just saying VB ap says it all. If I saw someone post
> that he had a "filePro" application that he wanted converted to something
> else... I would not have to hear anything other than "filePRo application".
> Either I know filePro or I don't. Going over what the app does and how it
> does it is part of the either paid-for or on-speculation evaluation that
> needs to be done before any contract is entered. Just knowing the source and
> destination languages is enough to equip anyone to do this evaluation.

I politely disagree.  There's a large difference between porting "Hello
world" or a simple add/view of a flat listing by simple search criterion,
and porting something like a multi-person (infinite users) scheduling
calendar system with hooks into everything including web, email, and SMS,
for example.  Doesn't matter if you know the languages in question.  It's
the complexity of the task required combined with the stated deadline that
are in question.  We knew one, but were given no clue about the other.
That's the real problem, in my mind.

BTW, if one -should- get paid for -looking- at something to eval whether
or not they can do it, boy have I been getting screwed royally for over a
decade.  I usually don't even have a committment on cent one until I can
vouch I can do it.  Apparently I'm doing something -way- wrong! :)  I
thought the whole point of "quote" and "estimate" was to give them an idea
of what they'd need.  And usually you eat that time.  I know if I take my
car into the shoppe, they'll eat time looking at it to diagnose it before
giving me a quote, and I can take it or walk without it costing me
anything.  Of course, the flip side of that is the medical profession,
where it's perfectly okay to have $7000 worth of tests run on you, have
them find absolutely nothing they can even diagnose, and you end up paying
anyway.  Apparently there are two approaches, and I'm not taking the one
that would make me more money.

> much different way. Not hardly... and think again, do you really feel he is
> going to read your response and re-submit his request? My guess is... he
> won't even come back to this list to read any applications or messages of
> any type. He mentioned contacting him directly, didn't he? Don't remember

Which, as has been well stated before, is kind of a no-no.  I differ
often with JPR (no, really?!), but he has made a valid point (IMHO) in
the past--if you're going to be part of a community, then be part of
it.  If you're going to ask in the forum, then expect the answers in the
same forum.  I'm not a large believer in drive-by begging, personally.
It gets abused.  Past experiences omitted for sake of brevity.  Maybe
whether or not someone is a pure "taker" should be part of that equation on
whether or not you charge for eval for spec or not.  Charge those obviously
driving by and trying to get help without giving anything back, do it
as a professional courtesy for colleagues who stay and help others?  I
dunno.  I'm not (at this point) willing to make any (more) moral or ethical
assertions.

> already, but he did not sound in the least to me like an avid reader of this
> list, but more like someone who was looking for help in a place someone told
> him about that might garner him a good response.

May or may not have been.  Can't say.  Could be one of the couple hundred
lurkers we have that just piped up, just as easily.  I've given up
guessing.  I assume that if someone asks, they're interested enough to
stick around and hear the answers.  If not, their loss.  That's my
assumption.

> Nope, still disagree. I did not see ANY of that in his post, and I just
> re-read it. Yes, you may not be alone, but all that means is that there are
> a couple of you who are wrong instead of one.

If that person would care to publicly state their observation, I wouldn't
mind at all.  I don't feel I'm at liberty to disclose it.  But it's someone
I respect (and you do too, John), and you know that doesn't come easily.

> assume/state-categorically/even-conjecture that this project is going to be
> badly done, turn out badly or in some way not get accomplished to everyone's
> satisfaction is well, I don't know what it is... probably just that
> conjecture... but I guess my point is here that it is negative conjecuture
> and again I ask why?  Is it because you agree with the definition of an
> optimist? That being a pesimist who knows better? :-)

Have you ever known me to be optimistic unless I knew the dice were loaded
in my favour? :) :) You know I'm a pessimist!  And you're absolutely right,
it's conjecture.  But it's also backed by past experiences.  If others have
differing experiences that are positive, they should by all means share
them.

> unfair of me, perhaps.  But seriously, Mark, aren't you aware of the dozens,
> maybe even 100+ people at least who *never* post on this list because they
> are afraid that there posts will spark a response taking them to task for
> one niggling thing or another... some of them going way overboard on the
> smallest of "infractions" as seen by the current taskmaster? You mention

I'm more than adequately aware of exactly that which you describe.  I've
had people tell me the same things in private--possibly nearing a good
percentage of the number you have.  And yes, you pretty much describe my
stock responses accurately.  But there's a line here that I'm seeing at
least on my side; this was a professional response with a stated deadline,
but none of the other details stated adequately to judge if one could meet
the deadline.  The's not an ettiquette issue, that's an issue that affects
net returns on asking in the first place.

As for the how many doctors would write something like that comment that
I've apparently snipped during heavy editing--usually none.  Most doctors
don't get near a computer, someone handling either the red tape or the
actual IT infrastructure at the organisation does it.  A lot of the
doctors I've both seen, talked to, and been told about (my parents work
in and manage medical clinics) are halfway computer illiterate.  It would
be a gross and false generalisation to characterise every doctor that
way.  I'm just saying--it's a rarity in my experience for one to make a
direct request that way.  And if so, then maybe I can see your point about
it being at least explainable, even if I personally don't think it was
adequate.  Maybe they're just not used to it.  There's something I had
-not- considered.  I would just assume that whoever's in a position to make
such a request would know that there wasn't enough data (from my
perspective, and apparently others' as well) on one side compared to the
other.  Never crossed my mind it could be someone in an ad hoc position
where they're doing something because they got the short straw or there was
nobody else.  Oversight on my part.

> C'mon... the problems you state above... are *clearly* your fault. If
> something isn't well spelled out... if something isn't agreed to in
> advance... etc., etc. It is certainly on your side, not the employer's. You
> control the contract, he controls the signature... you have the contract and
> specs to refer to at will... what does he have?

Contract? *laugh* What contract?  You know how many I've signed in almost
eleven years of business?  Two, for retainers.  And one NDA.  The work I
do is all "contracted" in the sense of not salaried or employed, but it's
rarely, rarely ever been locked down on paper with signatures.

That said, if I commit to something and get halfway through, I think there
better be darned good reason to drop the project and leave someone in a
lurch.  I at least sleep well knowing I did my best, even if I get burned
in the end.  But I'll see a bad project through, and have done so.  The
point is to not get into that situation again.  Preferably ever.

I've actually known people to get a project completed, decide they want
something that's a major design spec change, and call it a bug to get it
for free, because I'll fix bugs for free pretty much infinitely, but not
for design changes.  If you've never had that misfortune, well you're
probably BOTH luckier than I, and more adept at business.  The business
side of the job is the part I like the least, and am the least savvy about.
I have no qualms admitting that.  It likely shows to a large degree anyway.

> Okay, if that is the boiled down bottom line... then... I see absolutely
> NOTHING wrong with someone/anyone placing a note like this on this list:
> 
> filePro programmer wanted. Call xxx-xxx-xxxx for details. ABC Company, Inc.
> 
> Let the *details* be worked out by the parties interested. The gentleman who

Nor do I, John.  Nor do I.  Had it been -just- that, 'nuff said, all's
good.  It was the addition of that additional deadline without clue one
of what was all involved that threw the whole thing into another realm
altogether, at least for me.  Take out the deadline from his post, it
suddenly makes a lot more sense, and makes the poster look a lot more
with-it about what's going on on their end.

> bashing filePro, but just overall negativeness. Your explanation that you
> were trying to be helpful in your post is accepted on face value. I kind of
> thought so, but your message had the tone of being accusatory and

Yeah, I should know better than to try a mail like that on a day where I've
already had two arguments.  My error in judgement.  Sorry, folks.

> Noted, accepted... and no apology given because of your now-admitted
> possible in-eloquence. Had your note come across the way you thought it
> would... I would have never written mine... and so on and so on.

Amen.  Agreed.  I didn't really feel a need for you to be apologetic,
either.  Just saying...I wasn't bashing fP.

> I wonder how long... how many words we could each use to write the same
> thing over and over? :-) I'm guessing about 10e250?

Too many.  Your calculated guess is as good as any.  Let's just call it
good. :)

> I am satisfied that we each have made our points clearly... and ... and I
> hope there is no further "and"... :-)

Well, only a relatively smaller one.  The major point I bothered replying
about at all was the potential difference in scope of a project, and
its impact on any potential deadline.  I didn't think your statement
about, "if you know both languages/environments, that's all you need to
know" rang true because it's not -about- either.  It's about complexity
of task.  There's going to be a LARGE time discrepancy between writing
a DVD cataloging system and a full scale accounting package with all
the technical details, bells, and whistles.  I don't think that's an
unreasonable observation on my part.

I also think we've made our respective points clearly and am ready to call
it good.  I'm going off to enjoy the rest of my holiday gaming.  Hope you
have a good one, John!

mark->