Dealing with marketing types...

[Terry Hancock]

Yup! It's theold stupid + greedy double whammy that means they end up paying
more.
Your not feeling sorry for them, are you?


How much of *my* time are they buying with a salary? 40Hrs a week? 24/7 ?
You want to see that your contract as an employee doesn't somehow forbid you
from earning extra on your own time. Unless, of course, they are paying
enough to make you happy to sell them *all* your time. Sometimes you are
hired mainly to keep your skills unavailable to their competitors. Thats ok
as long as they pay you enough to keep you happy with this. Unless they are
paying for it, your own free time is none of their business.

You might be interested to know that California state law forbids anti-moonlighting
clauses, provided that no company resources are used by the employee in the
conduct of their own business (which means of course, you'd better not take
your business calls at work).

Not sure how many other jurisdictions have implemented something like
this, but it sounds like a very good thing to me.

 

[Thomas Bartkus]

man this is the worst advice I have ever heard, you can't "walk away
with code" someone else paid you to write. Regardless of what your
perceived slight is.

NEVER take code you were paid to write unless you have it in writing
that you can, you will lose that one everytime.

I'll agree here. If you were hired as an employee for salary or an hourly
wage, you will have no standing whatsover as "owner" of the work you
produced. If your ex employer charges you with theft, it will be a slam
dunk in court. You don't own what you produced for your employer. Even if
you were fool enough to do much if it on your own unpaid off hours. Even if
they reneged on some verbal promises to you in order to con you into doing
so. It sucks but that's the way it is.

However - I certainly sympathize with the desire to fight thievery with
thievery.
Unfortunately, you can't win that way. Unless, of course, you can do it
without being caught

But that only gets you revenge - not payment.
Thomas Barkus

 

[Cameron Laird]

.
.
.

less expensive. Arguing that a Python project definitely needs less
programmers than the Java counterpart ( which is very cost effective
because you need less management and administration to lead them -
remember that a programmer is always cheap compared to a manager ). A

.
.
.
Kay, please parse this for me. Are you making the point
that Java managers are intrinsically more available and/or
cheaper than Python managers?

 

[Kay Schluehr]

Sorry, Cameron, if I twist meanings.

Thomas argues that Python programmers are more expensive than Java
ones. But if one needs more Java programmers to fit into the project
plan one needs probably more managenment/admistration staff ( ~ ratio =
1/3)
and managers are usually more expensive than programmers.

I concede that this is hard to measure but for a similar issue one
should remember that the OPs project did not incorporate the role of a
"software architect" up to now - it did not have to be reified.

Kay

 

[Cameron Laird]

Sorry, Cameron, if I twist meanings.

Thomas argues that Python programmers are more expensive than Java
ones. But if one needs more Java programmers to fit into the project
plan one needs probably more managenment/admistration staff ( ~ ratio =
1/3)
and managers are usually more expensive than programmers.

I concede that this is hard to measure but for a similar issue one
should remember that the OPs project did not incorporate the role of a
"software architect" up to now - it did not have to be reified.

Kay

No apologies, please. You're making perfect sense,
and I have no argument with what you write here. The
density of pronouns earlier in the thread passed my
threshold, and I simply overflowed. Thanks for the
clarification.