It just breaks down on so many levels. So the client is a bear, and the developer is setting up camp, and the salesperson draws a bear into the cabin which destroys all of the developer's hard work.
So the real-world analogy would be that the developer is setting up an architecture (which performs similar to a camp - as a staging point for reaching goals), and the business guy brings in a client that then...what? Destroys the architecture? Invalidates it in some way?
It doesn't follow. A better analogy would be that the developer is digging a pit to catch a bear in, and the business guy finds a bear that's too big to fit into the hole. In that case, you have an instance where no one is at fault and there's simply an unshared assumption about the limits of how big the bear can and can't be.
But that doesn't make for as exciting of a blog post.
That's hardly the point I was trying to make... What do you think of the rest of the article, which has nothing to do with architecture or whatever, but to do with the importance of sales in a business?
You don't touch on the crux of the problem - good sales is about building client relationships and account management, not one night stands (which is usually what the analogy you're describing devolves into).
Dropping an swaddled and basketed infant sale on the programmer's doorstep is not what sales is about.
Yeah the part where the bear destroys the hard work is so miss leading. I thought you where trying to say that salesmen are the developers worst enemy.
