Post #104,647
6/3/03 2:07:46 PM
|
Kill the Methodologists
Foster elitism, save money.
[link|http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,3959,1038513,00.asp|http://www.cioinsigh...59,1038513,00.asp]
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination
of their C programs."
-- Robert Firth
|
Post #104,680
6/3/03 7:08:55 PM
|
Skill: the anti-Manager
But I am just about ready to suggest that we have gone too far in trying to normalize performance in software development, and that we may be following a blind alley as far as future capability models go. We may have simultaneously made software development so restrictive, and yet so complex, that programmers good enough to do what we need can't tolerate the methods and measures we make them use. This jibes quite nicely with one of my several bitches with Corporate management as it has come to be "practiced" in recent years. That is: Skill is the enemy of management. Management hates Skill. Among the reasons that I can think of off the top of my head, is that skill demands respect from those who are inherently disrespectful, it requires money (as skill is, and should be, more expensive) from those who would keep all the money to themselves, and requires flexibility from those who are most confortable being rigid (at least, with others). This article lends the lie to the concept, currently in vogue among the MBA set, that Skill can be driven from the Organization. Once so removed, it can be replaced by the Mongolian Horde; just throw enough [insert worker-type here] regardless of (or, more accurately, in spite of) their skill level, and somehow, if you follow the Corporate Rulez to the letter, and don't think too much, a Product will appear. That Skill can be divorced from success is bullshit, of course, but so are all other such Corporate Panaceae-du-Jour (which is how Corporte Amerika is being run these days). Skill exists, and it is crucial to Organizations that want to become or remain successful long past the buyout stage. Get the fuck over it! jb4
"We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's."
Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems
|
Post #104,692
6/3/03 8:06:30 PM
|
Re: Skill: the anti-Manager
true, once I became skilled, the law firm I worked for didn't want me anymore and did what they could to try and force me to quit. They also said that programmers are a dime a dozen because so many are out of work, and they could easily replace me. Just that my replacement wouldn't have the same skill-set that I have. Programs that took me a few months to develop, are being re-written for DotNet and it has taken them over a year now with no results. If they had a problem with me taking months to develop a large complex program, how can they tolerate the people they hired to replace me taking over a year to convert them? I gave them full documentation, every program was well commented, and I used their naming convention on variables. It shouldn't take them a year to convert over to DotNet. Unless DotNet programming is a lot harder than I think it is? My source is a coworker I used to work with who told me what was going on there.
Is this inability to convert a lack of skill? Or is it something else? I think that if I had DotNet training and I was given a year to convert those apps that I would be able to do it, given my past skills. I was dinged in a performance review for taking months to get a program done instead of weeks, how are they keeping these people who are taking over a year on a single program? It just goes to show how unfair they've been, favoritism apparently still exists there.
But management doesn't understand or respect skill, the only thing they apparently understand are those brownnosers who kiss up and work extra hours for no extra pay to cover up their mistakes and inability to get things done on time. I could have been one of the brownnosers, but I had too much self-respect and dignity for that. Plus I had to keep time for my family.
"If you're going to cheat, cheat fair. If there's anything I hate it's a crooked crook!" -Moe Howard
|
Post #104,706
6/3/03 9:08:51 PM
|
Re: Kill the Methodologists
I always wanted to discuss such a topic
I went to business school, and I specialiazed in MIS so I can that I have a B.A in MIS
some unies offer a B.S (bachelor of science) in MIS as a major in CS or IT.
I do admit, that my major is flawed, they tought us very little about coding and programming
I guess the major should be better in those college that offer it as a B.S
And remember I am that guy with no real experience.
But, I am still very happy I took that major :)
I enjoyed it and I believe in it.
I read the paper, and the writer absolutely ignored the difference between software categories
the process of building an OS would be very different then building and information systems
In the first part he talked about building complex systems!
I wonder what he means by complex systems.
An OS is a complex system, and the order-processing system for a multi-billion dollar company
can be as complex as you need it to be, I would not say that it would be as complex as an OS
but it can be complex enough to be called complex right!
I read about methedologies a lot, in the context of building information systems ->
book = { 1 : "Information Systems Development 2nd Edition bu AVISON AND FITZGERALD" , 2 : "Systems Analysis And Design by KENDALL & KENDALL" } # a valid python dictionary
and I read a little less about them in no specific context -> Xtreme programming.
And building an information systems, I firmly say, is totally different from building an OS or a text editor
I would like to explain why?
An Information have five basic components:
1- hardware (hw)
2- network (nw)
3- software (sw)
4- database (db)
5- human user (hu)
Now, the stress/problem/concer/worry/trouble in building an information systems in number 5
the human user.You the system builder (it would be an illusion and wrong to call you a programmer) are not working
in a tube or a lab, you are building a systems that will satisfy the user needs and help him perform
him do his work better, by means of technology. (hw, sw, nw)
The actual application architecture is not the primary concern here.
And an MIS person job is not excatly to architect a software solution, this
could be another flaw of MIS people, maybe they should learn more about applications
architectures, and design patterns.
MIS people are I think not tought to worry about that, because they usually just go with
the architecutre provide by the development tools they use. a.k.a application frameworks.
and they are mostly warned and tought to worry about satisfying users needs
not programmers needs.
Over the years, system builders started to develop methedologies that will help em
1- identify those need
2- generate alternative solutions to build a system (I mean the logical pieces and design of a system, not a software design or architecture)
3- pick the best solution
4- build the solution in time
I remember that book[1] said one of the problems with methedologies, is that most of them were developed
inside corporations and not and academic environment, and that we have a hungry need for academic researches
in information systems developement metjedologies.
So the problem with methedologies, could be that there is not enough serious research and studies behind them.
Not that the idea of a methedology is fraud.
Another well known problem with methedologies (also mentined in book[1]), is that with different firms and
organizations types you might have to use/choose a different methedology, and since most systems developement
firm specialize in one methedology those firms might fails to build systems to some firms.
An IT building firm should be methedology independent
Actually the book even suggest that some firm offer a methedology as a product, take for example Rational Rose and their RUP
I read briefly about RUP and it's really a nice methedology.
The same book (even tought old, and could be outdated) discusses different methedologies their weaknesses their strength, when it is best to use em etc...)
Thought, maybe he thinks that his powerhorse programmers and magically better (talented) because they simply
won't stick to one way to build a system, they will use what is naturally/obviously (not talentedly ) best.
I am suggesting that he failed to identify what really made those/some programmers better then others.
Of course I could be wrong, and of course it could be a more simple reason for example there is more
lazy people in life, then there is productive people, maybe he failed to divided the systems in a way
suitable for 8 programmers to work on, so only 4 had to do the work and the other 4 were tempted to become
lazy as their collegues took the responsibility to do the work.I am always and forever, anti-talent, I refuse that someone can be automagically better then me in doing things
it's either I am lazy (or generally lazy) or simply don't find that thing interesting
So if you see that you are not good at something and you know yourself that you are not lazzy, it is a clear sign
that you don't find that job interesting and will probably won't be good at it no matter how hard you try
because not only you are fighting the complexity of doing it, but also fighting dieing from bordom doing it.
There is many good advice, that can be given to someone who want to build an information systems.
I do think and agree and admire the opinion that identify building software as a human activity
and that manager of software projects, should worry more about managing programmers as oposed to
managing code, actually managing code is structured enough that we can use software (like cvs) to do that task.
It's funny to think that of course many software manager would be more happy if that article was correct, in that case that can spend their times doing nothing
leave all the work for those so called talented-programmers
And the recruters from the human resources departement (they will do the job of selecting and recruting the most
talented programmers).
The one things I find usefull and that we can conclude from this article, is that
a system building team should never be only composed of programmers
we can do a better job, identifying different jobs/task and assign em to the right people who
are neccessarely programmers, they could be managment students, psychology students, engineers
systems administrators, etc...
Sorry, for being so long, but this topic is so much fun for me to talk about
Please don't my words too seriously, for a big part this is my opinion and I could be wrong!
|
Post #104,769
6/4/03 9:06:24 AM
|
Thanks for joining in, comments
I am suggesting that he failed to identify what really made those/some programmers better then others. a very fair comment. Understanding the people he is refering too, it may be a little dificult to pin down on the why side. Someone who consistantly writes code that does the job without massive revisits either can do so or not. Some may know how but dont care. All you can measure is the preformance, not the mental makeup. And the recruters from the human resources departement (they will do the job of selecting and recruting the most talented programmers). how can an HR person tell wether someone is a good programmer? Part of the problem is the dificulty of smart IT people recognizing a good programmer via interview. HR is even more at a disadvantage. IT hiring should be done by IT people, let HR manage the 7 million tasks that ensure said employee is paid, medicaled, rested and retired. As a sysadmin I have met both great and poor programmers. The best I have met come from an EE, Music, Motorcycle mechanic as well as CS backgrounds. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
Post #104,799
6/4/03 10:52:18 AM
|
OT: Text formatting
You don't need to whack RETURN at the end of every line.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #104,848
6/4/03 1:37:44 PM
|
Most Methodologies have their basis in fantasy
RUP is among them. The scrum guys figured this out with the help of process researchers at DuPont Chemical's Advanced Research Facility
Why do the defined processes advocated by SEI CMM not measurably deliver? We posed this question to scientists at DuPont Chemical's Advanced Research Facility, where research into biochemical processes is applied to process automation.
The scientists inspected the systems development process. They concluded that many of the processes, rather than being repeatable, defined, and predictable, were unpredictable and unrepeatable. With that, the scientists explained the difference between predictable (defined) and unpredictable (empirical).
If a process can be fully defined, with all things known about it so that it can be designed and run repeatably with predictable results , it is known as a defined process, and it can be subjected to automation. If all things about a process aren't fully known-only what generally happens when you mix these inputs and what to measure and control to get the desired output-these are called empirical processes.
A defined process is predictable; it performs the same every time. An empirical process requires close watching and control, with frequent intervention. It is chaotic and unrepeatable, requiring constant measurement and control through intelligent monitoring.
Models of empirical processes are derived by categorizing observed inputs and outputs and defining the controls that cause them to occur within prescribed bounds. Empirical process modeling involves constructing a process model strictly from experimentally obtained input/output data, with no recourse to any laws concerning the fundamental nature and properties of the system. No a priori knowledge about the process is necessary; a process is treated like a black box.
The scientists further stated, "We are most amazed that your industry treats treat these ill-formed processes as defined, and performs them without controls despite their irregular nature. If chemical processes that we don't understand completely were handled in the same way, we would get very unpredictable results."
We confirmed that we also get unpredictable results, such as undelivered systems, delivered systems that are unusable by the customer, and the systems development process going on interminably without adequate output generated.
Regarding the systems development process, the scientists concluded that they are mostly empirical, because :
* Applicable first principles are not present
* The process is only beginning to be understood
* The process is complex
* The process is changing and unpredictable
From [link|http://www.controlchaos.com/ap.htm|http://www.controlchaos.com/ap.htm]
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination
of their C programs."
-- Robert Firth
|
Post #104,850
6/4/03 1:46:47 PM
|
Let's see if I can summarize
Another quote from your link: Writing software is a creative process, like painting or writing or architecture. When trying to create something that has never existed, it is difficult to reproduce the method used the last time it was done. Is that about it? ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #104,855
6/4/03 2:44:00 PM
|
Basically, yeah
I've got a degree in engineering.
When designing a structure, an engineer can calcuate expected stresses and design parameters, then go to a handbook of properties of materials and look up some values for *well characterized properties* of different materials before selecting one for the job.
A few software components are equally well characterized (Oracle for example). But the rest of it is like trying to do engineering with alien metal and no materials analysis lab. Basically you build something with it, try to use it, watch it break, analyze where and how it broke, and add/remove/change something to cope with the factors that made it break. This is empirical. Unlike engineering which is fairly well defined (you can look up the stress properties of a given alloy and know what will break it - this is defined), empirical stuff is inherently unpredictable (but not unmanageable).
The madness is trying to treat an inherently empirical process as defined. Management doesn't like empiricism. No surprise since a company's stock price is heavily tied to whether a company performs as predicted and empirical processes are filled with unpredictabilities.
The software industry is thoroughly delusional in many respects. This is one.
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination
of their C programs."
-- Robert Firth
|
Post #104,889
6/4/03 7:38:28 PM
|
Which brings us to the essential tension in SW today:
The madness is trying to treat an inherently empirical process as defined. Management doesn't like empiricism. Which is a shame, because most good programmers I know are "good" precisely because they are "good at" empirical systems, not at defined systems; the only defined systems they work well with are those they have themselves designed.
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #104,908
6/4/03 9:58:48 PM
|
Re: Basically, yeah
That was very much how rockets were developed. You said - "well, I have to make this basically controlled explosion that goes in a determinate direction right in the middle of a wad of fuel pipes, steering arrangements, and coolant and hydraulic functions. So you made something and watched it destroy itself, over and over again.
-drl
|
Post #104,920
6/4/03 11:29:17 PM
|
Ummm...
That was how the Americans did it you mean.
The Russians developed this little branch of mathematics called "control theory" allowing them to predict before they built the rocket whether it would be a stable system (hence probably won't fall apart) or an unstable system (hence likely to explode) without building it.
Or so claimed the engineer turned mathematician who taught the advanced ODE course I took...
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #105,051
6/5/03 6:07:42 PM
|
There's nothing wrong with Methodology...
provided you're willing to pay for price for it.
The shuttle's computer are generated by a Level 5 CMM group. They're certified (and have worked) without problem for a long time now. (There's a wonderful article about them out there somewhere).
What's in the article (between the lines) is the cost for going CMM. The shuttle's code is the most costly per line than any other code (probably by an order of magnitude). Time to market? (ie: how fast they can recognize and push a fix out the door?...don't even ask. (It's that bad.) And don't ask the cost of upgrading the systems to newer computers. (Forget about using that new processor from AMD).
CMM works VERY well with well defined system and minimal changes where speed is not of the essence.
Why businesses seem to ignore these costs is beyond me.
|
Post #104,921
6/4/03 11:36:22 PM
|
Ahh, a PHB in training.
No experience, lots of book, many worthless opinions.
Sorry, I am in the 10%. Actually, it feels more like the 5%
or 2%.
I'm well paid, well respected, and I enjoy my job.
His magical power programmers have been a known fact
in the industry for many years. You disparaging it
as a fantasy does not make it false.
I know some reasonably intelligent people who are not
lazy who are well paid and well motivated. And they are
still barely acceptable as programmers. My experience
is not isolated, it is continuous thoughout my career
and the industry literature.
People who thought programming would not be that hard
and could make a decent living at it. People who would
make fine accountants, lawyers, or maybe even doctors.
My favorite are REAL engineers who are horribly frustrated
by their poor performance.
It really is far more art than science, requiring a fanatical
attention to detail, while still being able to juggle a huge
amount of "state" in your mind. And it all can be wiped
away and restarted fresh when a new way of doing it pops
up, again, and again.
Structured programming concepts help, but they barely scratch
the surface of what makes a "real" programmer.
You are simply wrong.
|
Post #105,090
6/6/03 8:25:26 AM
|
Programming is more art than science.
I've said that for many years. The well known Perl mantra, TMTOWTDI*, reflects this. And how many times do we hear of "elegance"? Anything that can be elegant is in some way artistically influenced,
Maybe I should start describing myself as an artist...
Wade, who currently programs for a crust.
* There's More Than One Way To Do It, if you somehow don't know.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #105,093
6/6/03 8:42:10 AM
|
I know every time I want some programming done
I call Art :-)
hanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
Post #105,116
6/6/03 11:41:36 AM
|
This is the *only* reason I'm still a programmer
able to juggle a huge amount of "state" in your mind. And it all can be wiped away and restarted fresh when a new way of doing it pops up, again, and again. Dropping old mental frameworks (and integrating new ones) is what I do best. :)
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #105,120
6/6/03 11:47:39 AM
|
So you're good at forgetting things
How do you word that on your resume? ;)
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #105,137
6/6/03 1:39:03 PM
|
Oh stop yerself!
Actually, its really quite simple: So you're good at forgetting things
How do you word that on your resume? ;) You simply say you're over 50! ;-) jb4
"We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's."
Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems
|
Post #105,205
6/7/03 1:22:15 AM
|
That's easy
Just say that you are good at focussing on the task at hand. :-)
Cheers,
Ben
"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]
|
Post #104,953
6/5/03 10:15:58 AM
|
Sorry, you're misinformed.
I am always and forever, anti-talent, I refuse that someone can be automagically better then me in doing things it's either I am lazy (or generally lazy) or simply don't find that thing interesting So if you see that you are not good at something and you know yourself that you are not lazzy, it is a clear sign that you don't find that job interesting and will probably won't be good at it no matter how hard you try
because not only you are fighting the complexity of doing it, but also fighting dieing from bordom doing it. Incidentally, you need to work on your punctuation... There are plenty of motivated, average programmers. Not one of them can hold a candle to a talented programmer, even if s/he is lazy or unmotivated. Talent counts for a lot in this business. Saying it ain't so just means that you refuse to believe it ain't so, not that it ain't so. ;-) Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #104,971
6/5/03 11:27:17 AM
|
"You can't coach height"
I could be the most motivated basketball player in the world, Shaquille O'Neill will still be better than me. Ever see the movie Rudy? Little guy has a dream to play football for Notre Dame. Hardest working man anyone has ever seen but, as the coach [link|http://www.moviequotes.com/repository/titles/96502.html|said]: You're 5 foot nothin', a hundred and nothin', and you haven't got a speck of athletic ability in you. There are programmers like this. They work as hard as anyone, and really want to succeed, but just don't get it. Never will. As someone mentioned, they'd make great accountants. That's not a slam, either. I'd love to have a good accountant. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #104,974
6/5/03 11:29:53 AM
|
Exactly. And while we're on the subject...
Why is it that people don't get upset if you say your child is a great soccer player, or a great pianist, but if you even intimate that your child is extremely smart, they get all bent out of shape? This is where we start getting the "every child is gifted" and "talent is just hard work" memes.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #104,975
6/5/03 11:38:25 AM
|
No kidding
Especially when it's so obvious that my kid is so smart.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #104,980
6/5/03 12:15:15 PM
|
heck, i got one dumber than a rock but gifted
with a big heart and compassion.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
Post #104,981
6/5/03 12:17:19 PM
|
Not the same.
"Gifted" is actually a technical term in the educational sectors.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #104,985
6/5/03 12:22:10 PM
|
It is also used in the common tongue
"as gifted from god" yes I was aware of the educational tag. It is PC for the term genius. Instead of recognizing what is they like to pretend its a handicap like autism.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
Post #104,986
6/5/03 12:28:57 PM
|
Doubt mine qualify as gifted...
...but they definitely rate high on the lazy scale. :-)
|
Post #104,993
6/5/03 12:56:19 PM
|
I got one of each
Son who seems to be smarter than me. With my ego, that almost hurts to say. Then again, my genes, so it's OK.
Not as bright as Scott's son, but then again, who the hell is?
Reasonably intelligent daughter. Not saying she's stupid, but she has her moments.
She PLAYS really stupid though, in order to get other people to do her homework. She knows she's not as smart as Ben, and uses it to her advantage.
What she lacks in straight intelligence she make up for in amoral animal cunning.
|
Post #104,990
6/5/03 12:47:25 PM
|
The problem with discussing elite programmers...
...is that most programmers tend to grade themselves as part of that super productive elite. I'd bet that if you took a survey of programmers, 90% of them would rate themselves in the echelon of that top 10%. Apparently, humility is not part of what makes programmers tick. Which is also why there's probably such a high burnout rate in the field - the amount of knowledge that must be absorbed is growing geometrically and programmers invariably have to have some sense of control of their domain and a certain belief in their invulnerability.
As I get older, I tend to look at my software not as a series of accomplishments, but rather I see the deficiencies and the holes - being my own worst critic. I also see that many times software development takes a path where the really interesting stuff in an application is done upfront (because it is after all interesting) and the stuff you keep putting off - or can't quite figure out how to get around - is sooner or later all that there is left to do on the project.
|
Post #104,999
6/5/03 1:14:45 PM
|
Possible
As Ben pointed out a great study a while ago, as your incompetence goes up your ability to rate yourself goes down and you will rate yourself very high. Which follows your point.
But I think when you factor in interaction with other programmers and insecurity and failure you quickly learn where you really stand, and then it is a matter of hiding or leaving or believing you will get better. Or calling in the political correctness troops.
We have a couple who belong at about 70% level. Usable production programmers, but people who can't be trusted for the entire picture. If you need to be managed, if you accept that code will always have some bugs, if you think you can blame you environment for your personal failures, you are not a "real" programmer to me.
One of them was sure he was in the "elite" when he was the 70%er in a group of idiots. I saw him as the best of the group and chose to keep him on the promise he showed. But he stayed there and got no better. The ego is still pretty high, but the cracks are showing.
You also have the portion of the 10% who are so incapable of interaction with the rest of people (90% of programmers, managers, customers, etc) that the actual base of usable programmers from a corporate perspective is far lower. We got rid of one a while ago. He was FAR better than me when going in Perl. But his actual productivity relative to what we needed sucked.
As I get older I am more and more aware of what I don't know. That grows far faster then what I do know, so my knowledge base is constantly shrinking. I'm quite aware of this.
I used to think with enough time and money I could create/code/setup anything. Now I know better. I'll never have enough time. The only way to gain time it to multiply your ability over other people. So I also need political muscle since I am merely a catalyst to a much larger group of people who need to get things done.
|
Post #105,006
6/5/03 1:31:18 PM
|
I think I've reached that point
I used to think with enough time and money I could create/code/setup anything. Now I know better. I'll never have enough time. The only way to gain time it to multiply your ability over other people. I'm working on my third large PHP project. The first one, I did myself before I understood classes. I had a DB abstraction layer, but it was fairly crude. The second one, the lead developer had developed the whole framework, including a pretty good DB class. The current one started out like the first project I did, but one of the developers here has since created a DB class and most of the live code has been ported to it. As we are considering another re-write of the DB class, I'm looking at PEAR. The DB layer is a solved problem. So is HTML rendering. Why are we still writing new versions of this crap? Sure, doing your own is great for the ego, and probably more fun than porting to someone else's. But it's time to start taking advantage of this whole Open Source thing like we keep preaching to everyone. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #105,007
6/5/03 1:36:48 PM
|
The first thing I do now...
... is look to see if someone else has already written one.
A lot of times I find one, but it's crap. Oh well. The few times I do find one that works well, I've saved the time it would take to write my own.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #105,032
6/5/03 4:23:59 PM
|
I worked with many real 10%ers
I was surprised that so many (especially the younger ones) would have a problem, a little time with google and I say this might work. Next I get the "he downloaded code off the internet and expects it to work" look. Trouble with quite a few great programmers, they feel they have to invent the wheel everytime they see something round.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
"I hit him so hard in the head his dog shat a turd in the shape of Jesus" Leonard Pine
|
Post #105,029
6/5/03 4:03:56 PM
|
Its situational to some extent
Put me on a C++ or Java project and I'm nearly always disgusted with my coworkers.
On the couple of Objective C projects I've done, I've been pleasantly surprised by a few coworkers that taught me things (and extra disgusted at others - how can you work in such an elegant language and still write SHIT LIKE THAT?!?).
In the Smalltalk world I'm a promising bright youngster busy soaking up as much as he can from his superiors. I know some things but I need time to visit the entire surface of the environment to become truly wizardly there.
Sadly, I mostly only make money when I'm disgusted with my coworkers...
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination
of their C programs."
-- Robert Firth
|
Post #104,991
6/5/03 12:49:31 PM
|
Actually, lazy is better
Hmm, let's churn out a whole bunch of code to solve this particular problem.
Nahh.
I'd just have to do it again.
Hmm, let's whip up a mini-language that the production person can then use to drive the process, then I should hardly ever have to think about it again.
YES!
Lazy wins again.
|
Post #104,995
6/5/03 1:02:49 PM
|
That's "responsibly lazy".
And a talented, responsibly lazy programmer is the best kind.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #105,048
6/5/03 5:56:12 PM
|
Wall in the Camel book:
[link|http://www.redindustries.com/web2001/tsld007.htm|http://www.redindust...b2001/tsld007.htm]
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #105,082
6/6/03 2:46:48 AM
|
Re: Sorry, you're misinformed.
Entertainingly, it seems to me, from my non-programming but BOFHly viewpoint, that the better a programmer one is, the more spectacular and amusing to the IT dept your SNAFUs are :-)
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #105,096
6/6/03 8:48:59 AM
|
Undoubtedly.
Because we get the small networking things right, so you only see the massive cock-ups. ;-)
Ordinary programmers, IME, are typically content with the setup of their machines as it is handed to them. The curious ones, however, need watching out for...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #105,100
6/6/03 8:54:08 AM
|
Hmm. "curious", eh?
That's a term I haven't seen used to describe That sort of person.
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #105,083
6/6/03 2:51:57 AM
6/6/03 2:52:16 AM
|
Double post.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
Edited by pwhysall
June 6, 2003, 02:52:16 AM EDT
|
Post #105,590
6/10/03 6:32:54 PM
|
Talent how measured?
Talent counts for a lot in this business.
I have to disagree. One's political savvy-ness counts more in my observation. Talent in building software is hard to measure from most managers' viewpoint. They can measure how fast it takes you to build a new project from scratch, but that ignores long-term maintainability. The manager will probably be transferred or promoted by the time maintenance issues pop up. Further, somebody who might be great at writing maintainable code from scratch may be crappy at maintaining spaghetti code from others. There is an article around somewhere about the swamp-guide versus the engineer. Corporate culture tends to favor a swamp-guide mentality. In other words, somebody who can navigate messes is valued over somebody who prevents messes.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #105,591
6/10/03 6:34:29 PM
|
Point == missed.
I wasn't talking about success. I was talking about ability to create good software.
As far as swamp guides go, that's another discussion.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #105,623
6/10/03 10:02:50 PM
|
Software development is like driving
....everybody thinks theirs is the best. Give me my favorite tools (or the time to make my own), and I can crank out maintainable[1] custom biz software faster than a raven can blink. I think most software developers will make a similar claim.
[1] At least for me. If you don't think like me, then you may not find it maintainable.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #105,633
6/10/03 10:45:49 PM
|
Uhhh...
[1] At least for me. If you don't think like me, then you may not find it maintainable. The key point of "maintainable" code in the corporate world is that ANYONE can maintain it, not just the original coder. If the original coder is the only one who can maintain it because she's the only one who can understand it, then the code is worthless. IMNSHO. -YendorMike
[link|http://www.hope-ride.org/|http://www.hope-ride.org/]
|
Post #105,648
6/11/03 1:15:52 AM
|
ANYONE is a little too strong a requirement! :)
Most anyone skilled in the language and system environment, I would buy.
The KISS principle is paramount with few exceptions.
Alex
"Passionate hatred can give meaning and purpose to an empty life." -- Eric Hoffer
|
Post #105,649
6/11/03 1:33:26 AM
|
Well, OK...
...I personally thought that was implicit, but if you need to be explicit, then I'll have to agree. ;-)
-YendorMike
[link|http://www.hope-ride.org/|http://www.hope-ride.org/]
|
Post #105,726
6/11/03 2:23:03 PM
6/11/03 2:26:38 PM
|
Audience
The key point of "maintainable" code in the corporate world is that ANYONE can maintain it, not just the original coder.
But there seems to be a point of abstraction/indirection that if you go beyond, then you confuse "average" developers, and sometimes developers who use different abstraction techniques. Should one leave the duplication in place?
"Easy to figure out" and "easy to change" are not necessarily the same things. Some designs are easy to figure out, but hard to change because something is replicated all over the place. Others you have to figure out some crazy framework that may be easy to change once you find the right spot, but finding the right spot may be hard, and predicting the consequences of the single change might be nearly impossible.
________________
oop.ismad.com
Edited by tablizer
June 11, 2003, 02:26:38 PM EDT
|
Post #105,751
6/11/03 4:14:10 PM
|
Two words...
[...] predicting the consequences of the single change might be nearly impossible. Unit. Testing. -YendorMike
[link|http://www.hope-ride.org/|http://www.hope-ride.org/]
|
Post #105,754
6/11/03 4:26:47 PM
|
Another Two Words.
Amen. Brother.
And *I* don't program for a living.
| [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg] - IT Grand-Master for Anti-President | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] |
THEY ARE WATCHING YOU. The time has come for you to take the last step. You must love THEM. It is not enough to obey THEM. You must love THEM. PEACE BEGETS WAR, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM, STRENGTH IN IGNORANCE.
|
Post #105,769
6/11/03 6:07:02 PM
|
Megadittos
I'm reading Fowler's "Refactoring" at present and becoming more of a believer.
Tom Sinclair
President McNeal: "And now, the man who will lead us in our proud struggle for freedom. Fresh from his bloody triumph over the Pacifists of the Ghandi Nebula: 25 star general Zap Brannigan!"
Leela: "Sigh."
Bender: "Hey look, Leela. It's that idiotic windbag you slept with."
Leela: "The Earth is under attack. Can't we just forget about that?"
Bender: "Evidently not."
- 'When Aliens Attack', Futurama
|
Post #105,801
6/12/03 2:31:04 AM
|
Most places i've been don't have unit tests
I suggested it at my last major gig because things were growing too complicted, but nobody seemed interested.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #105,811
6/12/03 8:26:44 AM
|
The point being...
YOU should always use them. Anything you do, should use them. They are easy to integrate into your coding, regardless of what others use as a practice.
| [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg] - IT Grand-Master for Anti-President | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] |
THEY ARE WATCHING YOU. The time has come for you to take the last step. You must love THEM. It is not enough to obey THEM. You must love THEM. PEACE BEGETS WAR, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM, STRENGTH IN IGNORANCE.
|
Post #105,857
6/12/03 3:24:24 PM
|
OT - new LRPDism? (new thread)
Created as new thread #105856 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=105856|OT - new LRPDism?]
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #105,861
6/12/03 3:30:57 PM
|
regarding unit testing
I have yet to find an easy solution to unit testing web apps, especially with function-poor languages like ColdFusion. Plus, you often need access to a testing database, and the DBA does not allow such in some places. I tried to install a local copy of Oracle, but it did not work.
If I pushed it, I could have probably done such with a Python script or something, but it seemed like a lot more work than just being really careful and/or letting the customer find it (eeeek!). Plus, the requirements were still changing.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #105,863
6/12/03 3:35:56 PM
|
Re: regarding unit testing
[link|http://httpunit.sourceforge.net/|http://httpunit.sourceforge.net/]
Capable of testing javascript as well.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #105,772
6/11/03 6:18:08 PM
|
Don' you be talkin' about 'abstraction'...
Them thar's OO words!
jb4
"We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's."
Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems
|
Post #105,802
6/12/03 2:32:03 AM
|
Bull. Relational is more abstract than OO
OO has no "math". It is just a big messy sea of classes all connected in a "navigational structure" (graph of nodes/records).
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #105,887
6/12/03 6:09:32 PM
|
And tables are nothing but...
...a big messy sea of fields all connected in a "navigational structure" (graph of tables/records).
Hmmmm...
jb4
"We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's."
Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems
|
Post #105,937
6/13/03 2:06:01 AM
6/13/03 2:08:29 AM
|
Relational does not dictate underlying implementation
whether the "guts" use navigational structures or not is immaterial. Everything is 1's and 0's in the end, but we hide that fact most of the time. Navigational structures perhaps are the assembly language or machine language of databases.
________________
oop.ismad.com
Edited by tablizer
June 13, 2003, 02:08:29 AM EDT
|
Post #106,254
6/16/03 4:28:23 PM
|
Bryce, what ARE you talking about
Underlying any relational database is a table structure, with links between key fields in the tables. The ability to "relate" between tables is indeed a navigational structure. It's inherent, you get ift for free, and how it's done doesn't matter, so long as it works.
I don't know how you can say that a relational DB doesn't use a navigational structure with a straight face, unless you're trolling (in which case, I wouldn't expect a straight face).
jb4
"We continue to live in a world where all our know-how is locked into binary files in an unknown format. If our documents are our corporate memory, Microsoft still has us all condemned to Alzheimer's."
Simon Phipps, SUN Microsystems
|
Post #106,298
6/17/03 2:25:34 AM
|
You misunderstood me
Underlying any relational database is a table structure, with links between key fields in the tables.
Not necessarily. They are only links when you want them to be. For example, a join expression can be anything you want it to be:
select * from cities1, cities2 where cities1.name like
cities2.title || '%'
matches similarly-named cities.
This is a purely "calculated" join. There is no pre-set links. RDBMS may put commonly used links in some kind of index-like thing to speed them up, but that is an optimization detail that is hidden from the query builder. In relational, you ask WHAT you want, not HOW to get it. (This is in some ways similar to Prolog I hear.) With nav's, you generally have to tell it how to get stuff, which "path" to take.
I don't know how you can say that a relational DB doesn't use a navigational structure with a straight face
I did NOT say they didn't. My point is that it is an implementation detail that is hidden. Languages like Python or Pascal may use bytecodes or machine code underneath to carry out commands, but the language user does not have to really care. The relationship between relational and nav structures is similar. Navigational is the proverbial bytecode of structure manipulation.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #106,300
6/17/03 3:27:56 AM
|
And *why* do you think that happens all the time...? (new thread)
Created as new thread #106299 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=106299|And *why* do you think that happens all the time...?]
|
Post #105,635
6/10/03 10:52:37 PM
|
Most software developers are wrong...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #104,712
6/3/03 9:50:36 PM
|
Nice
-drl
|
Post #104,719
6/3/03 10:34:56 PM
|
Robert C Martin concurs
[link|http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=4738|http://www.artima.co...t.jsp?thread=4738]
Excerpt:
It seems to me that 90% of the code that gets written in the world is written by 10% of the programmers. The other 90% of the programmers write the remaining 10% of the code (and the 10% then fix it.)
.....
I wonder if we'd get a lot more done in this industry if 90% of us quit.
--------
I am so underpaid.
"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination
of their C programs."
-- Robert Firth
|
Post #104,730
6/4/03 12:59:08 AM
|
*snort* My PFY tells me that evey day
"You are so underpaid."
Many fears are born of stupidity and ignorance -
Which you should be feeding with rumour and generalisation.
BOfH, 2002 "Episode" 10
|
Post #104,754
6/4/03 8:10:29 AM
|
*Lots* of people have told me that
And every time, I say the same thing: "Have you told my boss that?"
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #104,898
6/4/03 8:35:58 PM
|
HOLEEECHIT!
I read that as: Kill the Methodists
Until, I looked JUST now, I knew what you were saying, but I could NOT get Methodologists to be Methodologists, only saw Methodists!
Imagine my surprise when it clicked.
| [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg] - IT Grand-Master for Anti-President | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] |
THEY ARE WATCHING YOU. The time has come for you to take the last step. You must love THEM. It is not enough to obey THEM. You must love THEM. PEACE BEGETS WAR, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM, STRENGTH IN IGNORANCE.
|
