From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Re: Draconian coding standards (was: Ada vs C++ vs Java) Date: 1999/01/18 Message-ID: <78039c$7vk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 434083321 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <369F1D39.64A65BC1@sea.ericsson.se> <369f81a9.31040093@news.demon.co.uk> <77ommt$9bo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77q4p7$diu$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77vk87$pv9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77vpeu$unb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x10.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Jan 18 19:50:08 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1999-01-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <77vpeu$unb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewar@gnat.com wrote: > In article <77vk87$pv9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > At one company I worked for, there were strict coding > standards (requiring the use of all upper case identifiers > in Ada). One developer refused and wrote everything with > mixed case. He would not touch code written with upper case > identifiers, and consequently would not work on anyone > else's code, and no one could touch his in the standard > style. The part mentioned in the latter sentence is quite bad. If someone refuses to work on code that they are assigned to work on, and tries (no one can stop it :-) ) to prevent others from working on *their* code, they certainly are more trouble to have around than they could possibly be worth. But I'd hope there'd be better methods of getting rid of such people other than trying to "legislate" them out of existence. If no one feels any connection whatsover to what they are working on, where's the incentive to keep working for you at all? (Hopefully the answer lies somewhere in your team dynamics) Your solution seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In isoloation this may not be to bad. But some companies hate the way that losses of individuals damage them, so they use all sorts of methods to try to foce every individual to act the same. Not only is this a tremendous waste of beuracratic energy, it ends up removing any joy a worker might have found in the performance of their job. This ends up *increasing* the turnover rate. T.E.D. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own