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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f4fd2,23202754c9ce78dd X-Google-Attributes: gidf4fd2,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,15edb893ef79e231 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-18 18:46:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!agate.berkeley.edu!agate!not-for-mail From: tfb@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk Subject: Re: True faiths ( was Re: The true faith ) Date: 18 Jan 2002 18:46:29 -0800 Organization: University of California, Berkeley Message-ID: References: <%njZ7.279$iR.150960@news3.calgary.shaw.ca> <3c36fbc5_10@news.newsgroups.com> <4idg3u40ermnp682n6igc5gudp7hajkea9@4ax.com> <76be8851.0201101909.9db0718@posting.google.com> <9jtu3u8cq92b05j47uat3412tok6hqu1ki@4ax.com> <3C3F8689.377A9F0F@brising.com> <3219936759616091@naggum.net> <3C483CE7.D61D1BF@removeme.gst.com> <3C48825D.4050805@mediaone.net> <3C489F84.663B98D0@nyc.rr.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: conquest.ocf.berkeley.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 1011408390 36945 128.32.191.90 (19 Jan 2002 02:46:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 02:46:30 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:24711 comp.lang.ada:19091 comp.lang.eiffel:5465 comp.lang.smalltalk:18194 Date: 2002-01-18T18:46:29-08:00 List-Id: Kenny Tilton writes: > no, you only think you do. then your average programmer looks at the > code for a week and before you can set up the first interview ms/mr > average says "looks pretty straightforward to me, i can maintain this." > > otoh, if mr/ms average gives up on the mess, the dearly departed most > assuredly was not great nor even very good. Hmm, for the slightly-below-average programmer, though, often they'll *think* they can maintain something, but in doing so will fuck up all over the place, break perfectly nice algorithms, change things to ineffecient algorithms, etc., not because they *couldn't* have followed the nicely-documented, cleverly written code, but because they figured it would be easier to do things the "normal" way whenever they had to change a part of a program. Things can stepwise decline into a mess in the hands of people who want everything to be done the "normal" way. The problem is that most programs are a mess, so changing things to work the way everything else does is likely to make it worse, if it was above-average to start with. > early on in my career i heard a line that puzzled me until i saw OPC: > "if you have an indispensible programmer, fire them." I understand what this is supposed to mean, but what about the very well-read, educated programmer who knows (or knows how to find) better ways of doing lots of things than the normal, naive method/algorithm? Such a programmer can be indiscpensible for things that can't be done in the naive way (for efficiency or complexity reasons, or whatever). -- /|_ .-----------------------. ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war | ,--' _,' | Wage class war! | / / `-----------------------' ( -. | | ) | (`-. '--.) `. )----'