221–230 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The first one to realise this was Jeff Bezos, afaik I am not aware about the details - can you elaborate?
Maybe the Two Pizza rule: No team at Amazon should be larger than what two pizzas can feed (usually about 6 to 10 people).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pair programming 100% of also works. It's unfortunately widely unpopular, but it works.
You are exactly correct. As to why it’s unpopular, I believe it’s just that no one has given it a fair try. Once you have done it for at least 20 hours a week for a few weeks you will understand that typing is not and has never been the bottleneck in programming. If you have not tried it then you cannot have an opinion.
I haven't tried pair programming except in very ad-hoc situations, but doing it all the time sounds utterly exhausting. You're taking programming, then layering on top of it a level of constant social interaction over it, and removing the autonomy to just zone out a bit when you need to (to manage stress).
Basically, it sounds like turning programming into an all-day meeting.
So I think it's probably unpopular because most software engineers don't have the personalty to enjoy or even tolerate that environment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does it sound horrible to have your code reviewed quickly? There is no reason for reviews to wait a long time. 4 hours is already a long time, it means you can wait to do it right before you go home or after lunch.
It sounds horrible to be interrupted constantly. I can't imagine they'd be particularly thorough reviews
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pair programming 100% of also works. It's unfortunately widely unpopular, but it works.
You are exactly correct. As to why it’s unpopular, I believe it’s just that no one has given it a fair try. Once you have done it for at least 20 hours a week for a few weeks you will understand that typing is not and has never been the bottleneck in programming. If you have not tried it then you cannot have an opinion.
I find it depressing and dystopian that people are now excited about having a robot pair.
But you can’t just not review things! Actually you can. If you shift the reviews far to the left, and call them code design sessions instead, and you raise problems on dailys, and you pair programme through the gnarly bits, then 90% of what people think a review should find goes away. The expectation that you'll discover bugs and architecture and design problems doesn't exist if you've already agreed with the team wh…
Code review benefits from someone coming in fresh, making assumptions and challenging those by looking at the code and documentation. With pair programming, you both take the same logical paths to the end result and I've seen this lead to missing things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > Most of what's planned falls down within the first few hours of implementation. > Not my experience at all. We know what computers are capable of. You must not work in a field where uncertainty is baked in, like Data Science. We call them “hypotheses”. As an example, my team recently had a week-long workshop where we committed to bodies of work on timelines and 3 out of our 4 workstreams blew up just a few days a…
Wait, are you perhaps saying that... "it depends"? ;-) Every single reply in this thread is someone sharing their subjective anecdotal experience.. There are so many factors involved in how work pans out beyond planning. Even a single one of us could probably tell 10 different stories about 10 different projects that all went differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never review PRs, I always rubber-stamp them, unless they come from a certified idiot: 1. I don't care because the company at large fails to value quality engineering. 2. 90% of PR comments are arguments about variable names. 3. The other 10% are mistakes that have very limited blast radius. It's just that, unless my coworker is a complete moron, then most likely whatever they came up with is at least in acceptable…
I'm very surprised by these comments... I regularly review code that is way more complicated that it should. The last few days I was going back and forth on reviews on a function that had originally cyclomatic complexity of 23. Eventually I got it down to 8, but I had to call him into a pair programming session and show him how the complexity could be reduced.
If you're sure cyclomatic complexity should be minimized, I think you should put such rules in a pre-commit hook or something that runs before a reviewer ever sees the code. You should only have to help with that if someone can't figure out how to make it pass.
If you're not willing or politically able to implement that, you might be wasting time on your personal taste that the team doesn't agree with. Personally I'm pretty skeptical of cyclomatic complexity's usefulness as a metric.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This falls for the famous "hours of planning can save minutes of coding". Architecture can't (all) be planned out on a whiteboard, it's the response to the difficulty you only realize as you try to implement. If you can agree what to build and how to build it and then it turns out that actually is a working plan - then you are better than me. That hasn't happened in 20 years of software development. Most of what's pl…
Pair programming 100% of also works. It's unfortunately widely unpopular, but it works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This falls for the famous "hours of planning can save minutes of coding". Architecture can't (all) be planned out on a whiteboard, it's the response to the difficulty you only realize as you try to implement. If you can agree what to build and how to build it and then it turns out that actually is a working plan - then you are better than me. That hasn't happened in 20 years of software development. Most of what's pl…
Pair programming 100% of also works. It's unfortunately widely unpopular, but it works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are exactly correct. As to why it’s unpopular, I believe it’s just that no one has given it a fair try. Once you have done it for at least 20 hours a week for a few weeks you will understand that typing is not and has never been the bottleneck in programming. If you have not tried it then you cannot have an opinion.
> You are exactly correct. As to why it’s unpopular, I believe it’s just that no one has given it a fair try. Once you have done it for at least 20 hours a week for a few weeks you will understand that typing is not and has never been the bottleneck in programming. If you have not tried it then you cannot have an opinion. I haven't tried pair programming except in very ad-hoc situations, but doing it all the time sou…
But it's something you have to work at which is definitely part of the barrier. Otherwise, saying it sucks without giving it a real try is akin to saying, "I went for a run and didn't lose any weight so I feel that running is exhausting with no benefit."