1. It's tautological that you can't make money without some form of sales. And it's tautological that if you're employee you cost money. Sure you can sell anything even a rock (see "Pet Rock"), but if the company is making money by selling software, then yes, the software makes money, otherwise your company would have its sales trying to sell rocks.
2. Games aren't for automation. They're for players to have fun. People have also written software as some form of art. You are not in a position to dismiss them as devoid of purpose.
3. There's more to "practice" to become good at software. There are specific tricks, approaches and attitudes to become good at it.
4. "risk management, cost analysis"... What are you talking about? There are people who write great software who don't deal with this crap (because they can offload this to somebody else). Heck even great companies sometimes do this (by offloading risk to investors). You're delusional if you think "risk management, cost analysis" is needed to be excellent "with absolutely everything else". Was Michael Jordan a master at cost analysis? Was Einstein an expert in risk management?
I'm surprised you have the audacity to write with such an absolute and authoritative tone. If anything, being good at software is to recognize edge cases and situations outside of the stereotypical scenario. It seems you've done the opposite and generalized your personal experiences into some kind of absolute truth.
I have heard this all before. Its excuses to qualify low effort and mediocrity.
1. You are either actively generating money directly with your activity or you are contributing to something else that does but you are only doing a single thing at any given moment. Everything else is just pandering to justify your existence.
2. Games can be anything. You don't need a computer to play Sudoku. What separates video games from paper games is automation. Nobody has so far proven this wrong.
3. There are no tricks to practice. You are over coming challenges or spinning your wheels pretending to do so. That is why beginner experts are so common.
4. I guess you have never managed people or products.
> I'm surprised you have the audacity to write with such an absolute and authoritative tone.
I don't know you, but your words indicate I have been doing this work longer than you have been alive.
1. It's tautological that you can't make money without some form of sales. And it's tautological that if you're employee you cost money. Sure you can sell anything even a rock (see "Pet Rock"), but if the company is making money by selling software, then yes, the software makes money, otherwise your company would have its sales trying to sell rocks.
2. Games aren't for automation. They're for players to have fun. People have also written software as some form of art. You are not in a position to dismiss them as devoid of purpose.
3. There's more to "practice" to become good at software. There are specific tricks, approaches and attitudes to become good at it.
4. "risk management, cost analysis"... What are you talking about? There are people who write great software who don't deal with this crap (because they can offload this to somebody else). Heck even great companies sometimes do this (by offloading risk to investors). You're delusional if you think "risk management, cost analysis" is needed to be excellent "with absolutely everything else". Was Michael Jordan a master at cost analysis? Was Einstein an expert in risk management?
I'm surprised you have the audacity to write with such an absolute and authoritative tone. If anything, being good at software is to recognize edge cases and situations outside of the stereotypical scenario. It seems you've done the opposite and generalized your personal experiences into some kind of absolute truth.