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

[dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

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