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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,93a8020cc980d113 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What is wrong with Ada? References: <1176150704.130880.248080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <461B52A6.20102@obry.net> <461BA892.3090002@obry.net> <82dgve.spf.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <1176226291.589741.257600@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <4eaive.6p9.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <1176396382.586729.195490@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <461E6DD9.6010600@obry.net> <2reWh.1480$H_.1259@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:15:07 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:6xxUYsj0kTdn1/vkLN/2Ga7/XWY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.202.101 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1177164438 88.72.202.101 (21 Apr 2007 16:07:18 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!storethat.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15205 Date: 2007-04-21T16:15:07+02:00 List-Id: Simon Wright writes: > 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