Re: What is wrong with Ada?

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Simon Wright <simon.j.wright@mac.com> writes:

> <adaworks@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> For example, if we know that a certain programmer always makes
>> mistakes of a certain kind, we can focus more testing on his
>> programs.
>
> Better perhaps to focus more review on the programs and more training
> on the programmer!

Absolutely. I'd be cautious with singling out individual
programmers. Whereas it's perhaps a good idea to have some kind of
measures in place for people who always produce fatal mistakes
(e.g. "wouldn't you be hapier with ..."), I'd be wary to publish
programmer ratings or make it too well known that such a process
exists. Such things have a tendency to end in witch hunts and being
abused in infights. In another part of this thread someone mentioned
that programmers shouldn't put their "ego in their code". Actually
they have some stake in their code anyway and if ranking programmers
on code quality is too much emphasized the programmers will find their
career dependent on their code quality (or more realistic: on the way
their code is percieved in the group). That will give them a really
strong incentive to camouflage what really happens and make mistakes
look like other peoples mistake or argue that they are other peoples
mistakes. The organisation will get bogged down in a lot of "ass
covering" and infighting.

Not for nothing formal reviews are _formal_, not meaning they use
formal methods, but meaning that the whole review is strictly
ritualized in a way that makes it easy not to take personally any
finding in that review. It is, to a certain extend, important, to
protect your programmers egos (against the impact of your critique as
well as against their fellows: There are always people in a team which
engage in a game of one-up-manship and one shouldn't give that any
additional opportunities).

Regards -- Markus