Re: who owns the code? was Re: Distinguishing type names from other identifiers

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

<69lael$90o@top.mitre.org>
<01bd2207$18f3fac0$95fc82c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> <dewar.884945034@merv>
<69nt40$q7n@top.mitre.org> <dewar.884996184@merv>
<Pine.BSF.3.96.980116171810.3901B-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
<69rnvv$gjr@drn.zippo.com> <dewar.885126007@merv>
<69t6fe$brl@drn.zippo.com>

On 18 Jan 1998 17:47:44 -0500, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
wrote:

> nabassi says
> 
> <<well, having 2 or more programmers working on the same peice code
> could not work well. It is like having 2 cooks making the same
> meal. or 2 or more painters drawing on the same picture at the same time.
> 
> I for one, could not work on a package or class, where
> I came in the morning to see my code has been modifed, and I could
> never modify someone else code on the project without a very good
> reason (customer on the phone screeming, the owner of the package is out
> sick, etc..) and without at least asking first if at all possible.
> 
> I am all for the team spirit and the little community feeling, but
> I beleive that each programmer should be assigned a task, and they
> own up to it, and they are resposible for it and no one else.
> >>
> 
> OK, there it is, both negative aspects of code ownership! 
> 
> In case my position is not clear, I regard both viewpoints as unfortunate
> in the quest to maintain maximum code quality and productivity. In
> particular, if you have this level of code-ownership viewpoints, you
> will very seldom get people reading other people's code in a routine
> manner. It is this many-eyes-on-the-code phenomenon which is valuable
> for code quality. Also, if there is this much code ownership going
> on, then you are bound to get divergence in style, further contributing
> to people being unwilling to look at, let alone work on, other people's
> code.
> 
> I quite understand that a lot of programmers feel as nabassi does, but
> for me, one of my absolute requirements in a software project, is that
> this attitude cannot be permitted, and I could not have people with this
> attitude working on projects that I was managing.
> 
> It's a matter of style, but I can certainly tell you that even though you
> can't really imagine that it works, my experience is that the "egoless"
> style in which people do not own the code they write, gives MUCH better
> results than the code ownership model -- you should try it some time!
> 
> Robert Dewar
> 
> 
> 

We're missing something here from both viewpoints: inspections! If I'm
working on any meaningful piece of software, I want feedback from others
before I do anything significant. Whether I'm doing the original design
or a significant modification of a package, I want and should be
required to obtain feedback on the proposed design or modification, and
on the actual implementation that I do. After all, I know I make errors;
as a software engineer, I probably spend more time dealing with errors
than original development.

So, if I'm working on a package, I would not expect to come in one
morning and find an unexpected modification. I would know about any
modification in advance. Similarly, if I'm modifying a package, I would
want the original designer involved in inspecting my proposed
modifications, so he would not come in and find an unexpected
modification.

Of course, if I'm absent for an extended period (more than a couple of
days), I would expect to find modifications to what I've been working
on.

I doubt if this is foreign to either Robert Dewar or nabassi (Nasser).
This inclusion in the discussion of any modification is probably what
nabassi (Nasser) means by not touching a package without contacting the
original designer, if possible, and probably what Robert Dewar means by
everyone knowing about everything.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Jeff Carter  PGP:1024/440FBE21
My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com )
"English bed-wetting types."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Posted with Spam Hater - see
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/