Post #247,419
3/9/06 11:07:47 PM
8/21/07 6:23:59 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Most people from there would be clueful
they have high hiring standards (sometimes a little too "high" I think).
His 5 essential phone screen questions is still used internally as an outline on initial screens for developers by many people there (more or less - I don't agree with all of his points).
I've never met him though.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #247,423
3/9/06 11:26:05 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I resemble that remark
When he says, "If you think one of these isn't essential, it's because you're not good at it." Well, I would have failed on his data structure questions. You know why? In my experience, the most common data structure is the SQL database.
Yeah, I know that's not what he meant, but the applicaitons I've worked on were so much more likely to be affected by bad SQL than by bad data structures it wasn't worth the time to worry about them. Most often the response time for the page is almost entirely due to query time. There's a lot of room for optimization there, but I don't think any of it would have fit his criteria.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #247,432
3/10/06 1:30:20 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I'd get 4, possibly 3, on his test
I came into programming backwards - I had a math background, then got jobs working with high level languages and have never filled in the low level ones. As a result when he specifies that code examples have to be written in C, C++ or Java, I'm going to have no chance of getting the syntax right even though I understand the principles perfectly well.
I'd possibly fail his OO question. There are two reasons for that. The first is that his list of terminology includes some C++/Java specific terms that I'd have no hope on for that reason. Things like "virtual method" make no sense in Perl, Ruby, or JavaScript. So I've never had to learn them. (I just went and searched. All methods in those languages are virtual. I still wouldn't have known it on an interview.)
The second is that he seems like someone who is a fan of using OO where I think it doesn't fit very well. For instance he asks for an OO model of the animal kingdom. And then wants to drill down to hard cases like mules and tomatos (which aren't animals, but we'll leave that). Well I look at the problem and my first point will be that any OO system you use to describe that problem will break. (If you don't believe me, then you don't understand evolution.) It then becomes a question of where you put the breaks.
On a personal note, it sounds to me like he'd consider my Perl background to be 2.5 strikes against me...
That said, where I work we have a standard list of questions we ask interviewees. Do we ask you to code? Yes. Do we ask you to do an object design? Close, we ask you to do a database design. But for a simple CRUD application to a first approximation the object design is the database design . Yes, we have a couple of scripting questions. We have an algorithm question. (Sorry Drew, but it is important, even with a SQL database. If you don't understand performance when you control the data structure, you have no hope of figuring it out when a database is controlling it for you.) We don't have a bits and bytes question. While I'd pass that, I simply don't consider it a requirement for a Perl position. (The concerns that he has simply don't apply in Perl. You're not going to have an off by one error that causes a buffer overflow. And if you need to think hard about how much memory you're using, then Perl was really the wrong language to use.)
So we ask about 4 of his 5 key areas. We also add SQL as a critical skill.
Sorry Todd, but it doesn't look like I could work with you even if I wanted to.
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,434
3/10/06 2:02:17 AM
8/21/07 6:24:21 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
We're pretty flexible
Most people here are polyglots and we generally let you code in what you know and evaluate you based on that. For a perl heavy person, I'd demur and get someone else to do the coding bits and I'd throw algorithm problems. OTOH, I'm all over the nooks and crannies if you claim to know Java or C++ (or HTML or CSS for that matter).
As for OO, mostly we're talking theory and I usually ask for a model of a domain that may or may not have inheritance in it (your call). I also tailor the OO questions to the language you know best. So I don't ask J-heads about virtual functions or virtual inheritance, but I'm all over that if you say you know C++.
Perl is a big (and key) language - it would be a plus but polylinguist are much preferred over single language people for obvious reasons (one trick ponies only know one trick is pretty true I've found).
As for drew's assertion about the database being key - there is very little database work and the average developer doesn't work with one. The architecture is unique and for practical purposes, for most developers there is no DB and CRUD means nothing in this environment.
"And if you need to think hard about how much memory you're using, then Perl was really the wrong language to use.)"
Oh, I don't know. A well used pattern is big chunk of rigid machinery (C/C++ libraries) controlled flexibly from little scripts that are easy to modify (Perl in this case). But again, you can't get by knowing only one language.
I came into programming similarly. I got my OO sense from being a stack head (Hypercard) before moving on to "real" languages like F77, then C, and C++. I'm pretty much a petroleum engineer with awful career timing.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #247,436
3/10/06 2:28:44 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I stand by my assertion
Perl wastes memory so quickly that if you have to think hard about memory, then Perl is the wrong language. Your description doesn't contradict that - you're just outlining how Perl can fit into an infrastructure where some bits are definitely not good fits for Perl.
As for being a polyglot, I have to agree with you about the advantages. I just haven't put out the energy to be one. Perl isn't really my only language. I can read a number of them, and have written toy programs in quite a few. In order of decreasing frequency, at work I've done Perl, SQL, JavaScript, VB, TCL, PL/SQL, DOS, sh, C, and C++. (I may be missing a few. And my C++ was limited to editing a list of known characters in a data structure.) But I'd only be confident in answering questions about the first three.
If I was more motivated, I'd fix that shortcoming. But I'm not. Among other reasons I'm not because I'm painfully aware that I have the wrong personality to enjoy software development. So at some point I should really do something else. (That said, I don't know what I'd prefer to do...)
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,446
3/10/06 7:46:43 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I thought you were into Ruby for a while...?
|
Post #247,464
3/10/06 10:41:50 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I was. I like it. Didn't do it for work though.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,507
3/10/06 3:41:07 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Speaking of which...
This is how all technical guides should be written:
[link|http://www.poignantguide.net/ruby/chapter-2.html|http://www.poignantg...by/chapter-2.html]
:-)
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #247,509
3/10/06 4:15:25 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Whew! :-)
|
Post #247,526
3/10/06 8:17:55 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
No need to apologize
I'd probably fail the interview for lots of positions I'd be very good at, for the same reason it sounds like you would: I never studied this stuff. Even the things I'm good at, I don't use (or know) the same terms for it as people who took classes. But to be honest, I know I also have blank spots, and they're for things I've been able to get by without. Unfortunately, I haven't worked with many people who were much better than me. I learned most of what I know on my own, or asking questions online.
You and Todd both point out that a "simple CRUD application" doesn't really need the deeper knowledge of data and performance issues. But the apps I've worked on have been 95% CRUD applications. I'd bet that much of the internal IT done today is similar. (Though I could be completely wrong about that.)
Funny thing is, when I had to choose who to assign work to, I always wanted to give it to the same people. The ones who couldn't handle the performance-critical pieces couldn't handle the CRUD pieces either. And the new guys who came in doing good work on the CRUD pieces could step up and do the optimization.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #247,592
3/11/06 5:34:05 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Sounds to me like you're a Bob
[link|http://www.cabochon.com/~stevey/blog-rants/bob-paradox.html|http://www.cabochon..../bob-paradox.html]
Scroll down to the bit about the Bob paradox to see what I mean.
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,594
3/11/06 5:49:14 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Bob annoys me.
If you were to ask Bob: "Hey Bob, how do you know you don't need to know anything about technology X? What makes you think it wouldn't help you do your job better?" Bob would reply that he's gotten by just fine for many years without knowing X, and he's been doing his job, so quid pro quo, ipso facto, ergo rectum, he obviously doesn't need to know X. He has no idea why you'd bother to ask such an inane question.
|
Post #247,602
3/11/06 9:26:31 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Not even close
Remember when I said I haven't worked with many people who were significantly better than me? That most of what I knew was self-taught? How did I characterize that? I'll help: "unfortunately".
I know I'm not a great programmer. I know at least a half-dozen things I could study to make myself much better at it. But I also know that I'm just not interested enough in it to do that much studying.
Ever since high school, I've been good at math. Actually, any hard sciences that are more about understanding than memorization fall into this category for me. (Physics, yay; memorizing the periodic table, boo.) Without even trying hard, I aced subjects that other people worked their asses off just to pass. For years I thought this meant I liked these classes.
Then I got to college, where everyone in my classes had aced this stuff in high school. And lots of them really dug it, studying new stuff just for fun. I spent a year grinding it out, getting decent grades but hating every minute of it. But the humanities courses I was required to take, those I loved: philosophy, psych, literature. And it turned out I was pretty good at those, too.
When the answers are either right or wrong, I always knew when I was done. When it's subjective, it becomes the problem in the blog entry you pointed me to: How much better a writer are you than the next guy? It's hard to measure. In a Philosophy 101 class of 200 students, if 40 of them get an "A" on a paper, do you think the best paper is qualitatively similar to the 40th best?
So let's say you're a hiring manager. You've got two positions open. One of them is more technical, with clear criteria for whether it's done right or not. The other is more subjective. You have two people apply. One of them is better at both jobs. Do you see why that person will always end up in the more technical position? You can clearly see that he's better at it. This is how I ended up as a programmer.
For me, programming has become puzzle solving. Now I like puzzles, but there's a limit to how hard I want to work at them. They're the things I do to occupy my mind when I don't want to think. What interests me is doing new things, or doing the current things better. Sometimes that takes programming, sometimes it's process changes, sometimes it's personnel changes. But it all comes down to figuring out what people really want to accomplish, and how best to do that. There are few clearly right or clearly wrong solutions to the problems that interest me now.
So do I think I'm a top-flight programmer? Not hardly. I might not even be above average. All I said was that I haven't gotten to work with any who I thought were that great. And that I'm really not that interested in becoming one of them.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #247,718
3/13/06 11:45:42 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
That's fair
I'm similar except that I actually enjoy technical stuff, and I found college to also be easy.
The "programming is a poor fit" problem that I mentioned is that I'm very extroverted. I'm not someone who can enjoy disappearing into a programming project for 6 months. I need to talk to people. In short, there is a reason that while 3/4 of people are extroverts, only 1/4 of programmers are. And I get to experience that reason first hand. :-(
Currently my job is reporting, which is a great fit. Lots of quick projects, and I get to interact with lots of different people. Don't know how much of a future there is in that, but it is fun. In the past I've also enjoyed maintainance programming. But I'm just not going to get excited about new development, which is the bread and butter of what people expect of programmers.
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,743
3/13/06 1:48:36 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
also reporting, like sysadmins will always be with us
Someone who can datamine efficiently and quickly is extremely valuable to any organization. thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #247,840
3/13/06 10:07:33 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Perhaps I'll stick with that for a while then :-)
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,748
3/13/06 2:21:57 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Spot on
But I'm just not going to get excited about new development, which is the bread and butter of what people expect of programmers. That's me in a nutshell. And as for reporting, like Box said someone who can do ad-hoc data mining can be very valuable to a company. That's another thing I can do, but that is falling into the "interesting puzzle" category for me. It's very comfortable, and I can easily do it for days or weeks at a time. But I don't really get a sense of accomplishment from it any more. It's about what you feel after winning five hands of Freecell in a row. Neat, but nothing worth discussing over dinner.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #247,867
3/14/06 1:36:14 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Doing your job shouldn't be an accomplishment
If it is, then you have serious organizational issues.
[link|http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/xp_and_cmm.htm#Level%20One|http://www.xprogramm...m.htm#Level%20One]
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,916
3/14/06 12:49:13 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Not sure where you get that from the link
Let's say you're working on something for two days before the first time you try to compile/run it. Do you have the same reaction whether it works or not? I prefer to see it work. I call that a feeling of accomplishment.
If your definition of "accomplishment" includes the sense of being surprised at it, then we're using different words.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #247,918
3/14/06 12:51:40 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Im satisfied by getting better errors each time I run it
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #247,923
3/14/06 2:05:35 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Well, what do YOU mean by accomplishment?
You were saying that reporting was uninteresting to you because you no longer get a sense of accomplishment from succeeding at it. From that I got the impression that you want to feel that completing your work is a challenge. So I pointed you to the first link that I found which explained that it is a bad thing for organizations if success constantly depends on individual programmers overcoming difficult challenges.
You now are clarifying that for you accomplishment doesn't mean being surprised at your success.
But the example that you give of something where you'd like a feeling of accomplishment again sets of red flags. If you are developing something for 2 days before you first try to compile/run it, that's probably a sign of something wrong in how you're developing. You shouldn't need to do that much development before trying to run code. There are far better ways to work.
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,942
3/14/06 8:14:36 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Hmmphh. I resemble that remark.
So I pointed you to the first link that I found which explained that it is a bad thing for organizations if success constantly depends on individual programmers overcoming difficult challenges.
Yes, I read it. And yes, it is probably right. But in my world, there is always a new and exciting problem to overcome.
On the other hand, I did something today that is the exact opposite of what is expected of me. I pitched keeping the mainframe for at LEAST another 3 years. Well, not exactly the current MF. One running under a Linux environment, emulating the mainframe hardware, running the real Z/OS operating system. Seem like the most cost effective way of dealing with the problem.
Scary.
|
Post #247,947
3/14/06 8:44:03 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
You've misunderstood both me and the article you linked
My example was meant to demonstrate a point. I didn't suggest that I actually work that way. In fact, my job hasn't involved writing code for over a year, and it hasn't been my main focus for about two.
As for the article you linked ... before pointing out how you misread it, how much have you read of [link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WelcomeVisitors|C2]? If you've spent any time there, you'll recognize the name of the article's author. His point was not at all that you don't want your programmers to overcome difficult challenges. It was that poor estimates lead to unrealistic deadlines, which leads to programmers making heroic efforts to make those deadlines.
If you were to accept a project [WARNING: MADE-UP EXAMPLE FOLLOWS. Author does not recommend actually doing this.] to transcribe Webster's dictionary by hand, and committed to a deadline of one week to do it, you'd probably have to make heroic efforts to come close. You'd fail, too. Or you could commit to one week to improve the average response time of a search page by 10%.
Both of these projects represent a difficult challenge. One would lead to burn-out, one would lead to a sense of accomplishment. Which do you think I'm interested in?
Now, assuming you understand what I mean by accomplishment ... To me, reporting has become little more than the dictionary transcription example. It may involve a lot of work. It might take days to do a single report well. But I'm bored doing it. The interesting part -- to me -- would be figuring out what you want to report on, what the numbers mean to the business, and how to improve the processes represented by the numbers.
If someone wanted to throw obscene amounts of money at me for a short-term reporting project, I'd probably do it. I'm a whore that way. But once I got some shiny new toys, I'd be looking for the door.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #247,957
3/14/06 10:04:25 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I *really* don't believe I misread the article
Yes, I'm very aware of how it generally comes to pass that companies ask for heroic efforts from individual employees. However there is a feedback loop here. A company that pushes employees to heroic efforts has something broken about their estimation process. But conversely if employees really don't know whether they can do what they try to do, then I guarantee that they will regularly fail. Which will lead to a lot of uncertainty and make accurate estimation impossible. And to complete the scenario, most people burn out fairly quickly from heroics. (Programmers are particularly likely to be demotivated by pressure to be heroic.) Which means that if you're requiring heroics, then you'll quickly wind up with a burned out team and all ofthe attending problems that come with that as well.
In short heroics are both a cause and effect of organizational problems. Which makes heroics a red flag to watch out for.
Going to your made up example, obviously your "bad" problem is bad. But your "good" problem is also bad. If the whole spec was "speed it up by 10%", that's a bad project to commit someone to. Perhaps it can't be sped up by 10% at all. Or perhaps it can but that programmer won't be the one to do it. Or perhaps it can be sped up in 20 minutes after you realize that it isn't using an index. A far better project would be, "Spend up to a week studing how to speed up search." Another good project would be, "Spend a week to do change X that we think would speed up search by 10%".
Why are those versions better? Well first, with both it is fairly easy to figure out where to start. Second, both make demands on programmer effort that are estimatable up front so that programmers can give you feedback on whether your demands are reasonable. Thirdly other people can be given clear messages about when to expect improvements that they need.
About whether I understand you, I am quite certain that I don't. You are throwing around the word "accomplishment", but I don't know when you feel a sense of accomplishment in doing something, and when you don't. And I'm painfully aware that different people feel a sense of accomplishment about very different things. (BTW there is a certain irony that you'd respond to a post titled, Well, what do YOU mean by accomplishment? with a response where you say, assuming you understand what I mean by accomplishment... Um, in fact I probably don't...)
About reporting. You might find reporting (at least as it is for my job) more interesting than you think. People often ask for reports that are not going to happen in a reasonable time frame, I have to explain that to them. People often ask for reports that won't actually solve the question that they want to solve, and I often have to work with them to define a report that does. People often ask for a report without realizing that someone they don't work closely with already has the answers they want, and I get to hook them up. And given that I'm in so many discussions, I often wind up pointing out, "You know, it wouldn't be hard for me to give you numbers for _____, which would probably help you a lot." Plus a large fraction of the questions that people want to answer are of the form, "Why do the numbers look like ____?" Which puts me close to business problems in discussion with people whose responsibility is to address those problems. If I have any ideas about why that happened or what to do about them, they are all ears.
There is a lot more to the job than just producing reports that someone else has specified.
Cheers, Ben
PS FYI, I recognized the author's name when I saw the article. That was part of why I stopped on that article, even though I'm not a big fan of CMM.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,962
3/14/06 10:58:15 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I don't think he's a fan of CMM either
He was discussing how agile maps to CMM. I took it more as a way to use CMM, which has some executive-level acceptance, to justify or explain agile. Yes, I'm very aware of how it generally comes to pass that companies ask for heroic efforts from individual employees. You're focusing on the time aspect of "heroic efforts". I completely agree that heroic time commitments are a huge red flag. In fact the article supports something I said earlier in (I believe) this thread: Most programming work does not require genius. Yes, the cutting-edge stuff Todd described probably does. But your "good" problem is also bad. If the whole spec was "speed it up by 10%", that's a bad project to commit someone to. Perhaps it can't be sped up by 10% at all. You mean it can't be done with new code on the existing hardware, right? Some problems can be solved by throwing hardware at it. What if you're at a small company with a single DB server that's got 2GB of ram in it. How much does another 2GB cost? What does one week of programmer salary cost? That's actually a good example of what I mean when I say I'm interested in giving users what they need. Programmers want to write code. IT directors want to develop systems. Operatoins people want solutions. Sometimes the best solution doesn't involve IT. BTW there is a certain irony that you'd respond to a post titled, Well, what do YOU mean by accomplishment? with a response where you say, assuming you understand what I mean by accomplishment... That followed four paragraphs of explaining what I meant. Perhaps I should have written, "Assuming you now understand ..."
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #247,964
3/14/06 11:22:45 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
He's not. :-)
He was discussing how agile maps to CMM. I took it more as a way to use CMM, which has some executive-level acceptance, to justify or explain agile. Yup. Yes, I'm very aware of how it generally comes to pass that companies ask for heroic efforts from individual employees. You're focusing on the time aspect of "heroic efforts". I completely agree that heroic time commitments are a huge red flag. In fact the article supports something I said earlier in (I believe) this thread: Most programming work does not require genius. Yes, the cutting-edge stuff Todd described probably does.
I believe you've said it before, but I don't think you said it in this thread. About heroism, it isn't just heroic time efforts that are bad. It is also bad (albeit for different reasons) to depend on someone having a brilliant flash of insight to be able to get a project done. It is great to have someone have a brilliant flash of insight and then start a project. It is great for a project to be simplified by a brilliant flash of insight. But it is bad to depend on that. But your "good" problem is also bad. If the whole spec was "speed it up by 10%", that's a bad project to commit someone to. Perhaps it can't be sped up by 10% at all. You mean it can't be done with new code on the existing hardware, right? Some problems can be solved by throwing hardware at it. What if you're at a small company with a single DB server that's got 2GB of ram in it. How much does another 2GB cost? What does one week of programmer salary cost?
I didn't mean "with new code on the existing hardware". I did mean "at acceptable cost". For instance at my job, search is a major technical problem. But the easy bullets have mostly been fired. For instance I believe that you aren't going to improve our hardware without spending 5 or 6 figures on it. There are a few bullets left. There is a caching improvement scheduled that will let us scale another 50% or so. (The primary concern is not time users spend doing a search, it is how many concurrent users we can support without melting down.) And we're about to upgrade our database to 10G, and there is a real possibility that we'll be able to find an easy improvement or two after doing so. Plus we're scheduling hardware improvements, I think for the fall. While you were posing a hypothetical question, I'm giving answers based on a very real example which I know a fair amount about. That's actually a good example of what I mean when I say I'm interested in giving users what they need. Programmers want to write code. IT directors want to develop systems. Operatoins people want solutions. Sometimes the best solution doesn't involve IT. Sometimes the best solution requires all groups to cooperate. That's certainly been the case with search for us. BTW there is a certain irony that you'd respond to a post titled, Well, what do YOU mean by accomplishment? with a response where you say, assuming you understand what I mean by accomplishment... That followed four paragraphs of explaining what I meant. Perhaps I should have written, "Assuming you now understand ..."
That was a bad assumption. I feel no closer than I did before to knowing when you will or will not feel a sense of accomplishment. But let's leave that point. It isn't important. Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,961
3/14/06 10:46:28 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
OT: 2 days before running something
I've done that before. Sometimes I like to get the whole design down before the details, and the easiest way for me to do that is to code, sometimes for a few days, before worrying about "does it run". Usually the compile/test part only takes a few iterations at that point, anyways.
And yes, I also do iterative development. I'm just pointing out that your blanket statement is wrong (at least for me).
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #247,963
3/14/06 10:59:32 PM
3/14/06 10:59:47 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I went back and forth on that before saying it
And even then I weaseled with "probably a sign".
Yes, I know there are times when it makes sense to code for a long time before running anything. I've done so myself. But I don't do so as a rule, and consider it a red flag if someone does do so as a rule.
I should also note that the programs where I've felt a need to develop that way have generally worked very well, but with a density of "interesting" that makes it very good that they do so.
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
![Expand](/static/images/plus.png)
Edited by ben_tilly
March 14, 2006, 10:59:47 PM EST
|
Post #247,944
3/14/06 8:38:59 PM
8/21/07 6:36:11 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
I don't buy it
If all I'm doing is re-coding a well known algorithm in the latest fad language then maybe I buy it.
But some organizations (like my employer) are pushing the bounds of what computers can do. Either through original research or development based on academic research.
I heard an interesting talk today about distributed "eventually consistent" caches which are kept up to date using epidemiologic (also known as "gossip") algorithms. Its a slick kind of idea that allow an overall reduction in cost by letting us do more with less hardware (this year's theme).
The organization's success depends on lowering costs like this and creating new capabilities like this is most definitely an "accomplishment".
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #247,958
3/14/06 10:14:45 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
What I was trying to say...
was that just getting your job done shouldn't be a major accomplishment for you.
That doesn't mean that in your job you won't have accomplishments.
Cheers, Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #247,960
3/14/06 10:30:22 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
quite often in large corps org A doesnt realize that org b
does exactlky what they are trying to invent. Top down comms are essential as well as cross company connections thanx, bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
|
Post #247,998
3/15/06 11:23:35 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Getting out of bed in the morning is my major accomplishment
|