Re: [9fans] XP (was: code complexity)

Re: [9fans] XP (was: code complexity)

[geoff]

I haven't read enough about XP to comment on most of it, but I dislike
the idea of pair programming.  There's nothing wrong with someone else
reading my code, but I need some quiet and calm to program, so having
someone nattering in my ear, second-guessing me is going to be a
disaster.  And how is the other member of the pair selected?  Having
someone you don't like or don't agree with as your partner would be
even more galling.  It would be like being part of a team that isn't
self-selected but imposed by management (actually a ``team'' in that
case, since it's not real).  And how do you program at home or when
travelling?  Pick some random person as your partner?  Go it alone?

Re: [9fans] code complexity

[George Michaelson]

I've been told DLLs include some smarts about code introspection so
you can find out whats in the damn things sensibly, runtime and know
how to interact with them.

I would have thought there were simple ways to do that, and Its not
such a bad idea to include a call which tells you what to pass in, to
talk to the external bindings made visible inside the package.

-George

--
George Michaelson       |  APNIC
Email: ggm@apnic.net    |  PO Box 2131 Milton QLD 4064
Phone: +61 7 3367 0490  |  Australia
  Fax: +61 7 3367 0482  |  http://www.apnic.net

Re: [9fans] OT XP (was: code complexity)

[Matt H]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:10:00 -0800
"geoff@collyer.net" <geoff@collyer.net> wrote:

> And how is the other member of the pair selected? 
On rotation so every programmer works on every part of the code (even if
it's as a buddy)

I suppose some ppl can go with it some can't (I've not tried)

I guess it's like trying to do a painting in pairs

It's basically on-going code review of every keystroke

Re: [9fans] XP (was: code complexity)

[Boyd Roberts]

geoff@collyer.net wrote:
> I haven't read enough about XP to comment on most of it, but I dislike
> the idea of pair programming.

Depends of the circumstances.

> There's nothing wrong with someone else
> reading my code, but I need some quiet and calm to program, so having
> someone nattering in my ear, second-guessing me is going to be a
> disaster.  And how is the other member of the pair selected?

Well yeah, that is a problem.  At least here we're a small group and
are going in the same direction.  Pair programming in a large group
[real world] would be a disaster (unless you like being lectured or
yelled at :).

We don't do it that much, but sometimes we do, when we want to, with
who we want to.  Then again, I guess I am pair programming right now
with a guy 30km away [we are discussing protocol implementation issues].

> Go it alone?

I'd go for the 'go it alone' but call in for help when I/you need it.

Re: [9fans] code complexity

[Boyd Roberts]

George Michaelson wrote:
> I've been told DLLs ...

We have a terminology problem:

    shared library = unix thing

    DLL = windows thing

They are not the same things.

With a DLL all share its data; you do not get a copy.

However, they are both evil.

Re: [9fans] code complexity

[Andrew Simmons]

>With a DLL all share its data; you do not get a copy.

I didn't think this had been true since the days of 16 bit Windows?

>However, they are both evil.
>
I'm afraid I've been turned to the dark side here. I've found them very
useful to add functionality to applications written by others -
particularly MS Excel, where I've written DLL add-ins to do various things
such as NZ bond pricing & pulling in data from ISAM files. There may be
other & better ways of doing this kind of thing, but I don't know what they
are. I believe the Oberon system has some way of adding functionality at
run time.

Re: [9fans] OT pair programming

[Boyd Roberts]

One place where pair programming does work is in the case of
pilot + WSO/RIO in the F-4, F-14, F-15E [strike] and AH-64.