Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dad and the ten commandments of egoless programming (2012)

blog.stephenwyattbush.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 110 posts

Re: Dad and the ten commandments of egoless programming (2012)

#31

Post by skmurphy »

pvg wrote: post #22
skmurphy wrote: post #19

This article is a direct lift from https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-ten-commandments-of-egoles... the bulk of it is a verbatim copy of Atwood's summary without credit. These rules do not appear in this form or as a list of "10 commandments" in "Psychology of Computer Programming."

I assume you've read the book, what form, if any, do they appear in? I just skimmed through the text very superficially and didn't find anything that looked like these 'commandments'. Is the original Atwood post as iffy as this makes it seem or did I just miss relevant parts?

I have read the book several times, Atwood offers more of a artistic interpretation of Weinberg's insights. It's no accident that no quote marks appear in his version.

Re: Dad and the ten commandments of egoless programming (2012)

#33

Post by pvg »

skmurphy wrote: post #31
pvg wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you've read the book, what form, if any, do they appear in? I just skimmed through the text very superficially and didn't find anything that looked like these 'commandments'. Is the original Atwood post as iffy as this makes it seem or did I just miss relevant parts?

I have read the book several times, Atwood offers more of a artistic interpretation of Weinberg's insights. It's no accident that no quote marks appear in his version.

Thanks, I suppose I'll read it myself to get a better idea of the degree of interpretation involved. There's a comment on the Atwood article which makes a point similar to yours above and Atwood's reply is very odd:

https://discourse.codinghorror.com/t/the-ten-commandments-of...

He seems to think these are, in part at least, quotes. And it's not just the "guy in the room" bit - when the commenter points out the book contains no 'commandments', Atwood doesn't say 'Oh, I just summarized it in list form'. He says he doesn't know where the text came from (?!). It's like the Atwood piece is itself derivative of something and it's not just the book and Atwood's own writing? Weird.

Re: Dad and the ten commandments of egoless programming (2012)

#34

Post by whatshisface »

ourmandave wrote: post #30
mkl95 wrote: post #5

I agree with all of it. I find commandment 2 to be the most enlightening one. > You are not your code. Remember that the entire point of a review is to find problems, and problems will be found. Don’t take it personally when one is uncovered. In my career, I have had to deal with other senior developers who would throw tantrums whenever I pointed out something problematic about their code. Over the years, there's som…

In my career, I have had to deal with other senior developers who would throw tantrums whenever I pointed out something problematic about their code. Obviously how and when you point it out matters. Like in the middle of a user demo. "Why does it let me enter Feb 30th?" "Oh, Dave wrote the validation on that. What was your thought process on that one Dave?"

"Future-proofing for the introduction of leap months."

Re: Dad and the ten commandments of egoless programming (2012)

#35

Post by Swizec »

wnolens wrote: post #3
Mageek wrote: post #2

This is a great list - thank you. I learned a long time ago to not use “you” or similar in code reviews, as it is too easy to associate a critique of code with a critique of the coder. Changing “You should change this” to “This should be changed” or even “We should change this” can make a world of difference.

Yes, the "we" in place of "you" is a meaningful difference I've noticed in code reviews. Having to participate in a development team has made me a bit of a nicer person, as my default reaction is to blame. But that's completely inappropriate.

One problem with "we" is when you work with people who aren't yet used to american corporatisms. You say "We should change this" and it doesn't get changed because you assumed they'll understand that you meant they should change it. But they think you just offered to change it for them and sit back waiting for you to do what you said you would.

Re: Dad and the ten commandments of egoless programming (2012)

#36

Post by wnolens »

Swizec wrote: post #35
wnolens wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the "we" in place of "you" is a meaningful difference I've noticed in code reviews. Having to participate in a development team has made me a bit of a nicer person, as my default reaction is to blame. But that's completely inappropriate.

One problem with "we" is when you work with people who aren't yet used to american corporatisms. You say "We should change this" and it doesn't get changed because you assumed they'll understand that you meant they should change it. But they think you just offered to change it for them and sit back waiting for you to do what you said you would.

Lol that's pretty funny to view as a cultural difference.. in my experiences it's mostly unwillingness to take responsibility.

Re: Dad and the ten commandments of egoless programming (2012)

#37

Post by sethammons »

snapcore wrote: post #29
westoncb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I'd have nodded and read on a couple years ago when I'd only had thoughtful/well-informed/diversely-experienced developers review my code. I've learned since that it's also possible to have your code reviewed by someone without particularly deep understanding (nor awareness of what they lack), who would insist that responding to a critique of (what they think is) a problem is essentially being argumentative b…

Yeah, the person who thinks a mistake is "you aren't writing the code my way" in itself is an ego trap. A lot of programmers get trapped in their viewpoint and think everyone should write code like them because it would make more sense to them if everyone did, when it isn't objectively better.

"Given the choice between my opinion and yours, I'll take mine. Got any data?" -former boss

Re: Dad and the ten commandments of egoless programming (2012)

#38

Post by skj »

sethammons wrote: post #37
snapcore wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the person who thinks a mistake is "you aren't writing the code my way" in itself is an ego trap. A lot of programmers get trapped in their viewpoint and think everyone should write code like them because it would make more sense to them if everyone did, when it isn't objectively better.

"Given the choice between my opinion and yours, I'll take mine. Got any data?" -former boss

My former boss too! That message was sort of the beginning of the end for the trust I had. Very disappointing.

Re: Dad and the ten commandments of egoless programming (2012)

#39

Post by Swizec »

wnolens wrote: post #36
Swizec wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem with "we" is when you work with people who aren't yet used to american corporatisms. You say "We should change this" and it doesn't get changed because you assumed they'll understand that you meant they should change it. But they think you just offered to change it for them and sit back waiting for you to do what you said you would.

Lol that's pretty funny to view as a cultural difference.. in my experiences it's mostly unwillingness to take responsibility.

Not so much a cultural difference as a language barrier. “We” is unclear. It diffuses responsibility. Makes it easy for everyone to think someone else is owning $thing.
Post reply on HN