The parable is really about the nature of corporate politics and the art of perception management.
I'm not sure how obvious the underlying point is -> programming languages and methodologies are structured by political requirements.
Programmer A is writing software. He knows nothing about perception management and status plays.
Programmer B is furthering his career and angling for a raise. By accepting 'corporate coding standards' he has proven he knows how to play the game and uses the project to increase his status.
The quality of the finished product, in terms of user experience and practical usefulness, isn't nearly as important as the social processes that created it.
IMO the interesting question is how much this applies to coding culture and language and OS design as a whole.
I'm not sure how obvious the underlying point is -> programming languages and methodologies are structured by political requirements.
Programmer A is writing software. He knows nothing about perception management and status plays.
Programmer B is furthering his career and angling for a raise. By accepting 'corporate coding standards' he has proven he knows how to play the game and uses the project to increase his status.
The quality of the finished product, in terms of user experience and practical usefulness, isn't nearly as important as the social processes that created it.
IMO the interesting question is how much this applies to coding culture and language and OS design as a whole.