121–130 of 158 posts
The article is very humble, but in my view, seems to go a little too far. "You can reuse code with inheritance. Absolutely crazy. Brilliant. All of this blew me away." Honestly?
To each his own. For me it was epoll() that blew me away. Absolutely crazy. Brilliant. But in retrospect so damn obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anecdotic: I have always been good at sports, popular, and confident, I'm fairly certain this is a lie, given the way you've presented yourself in this thread.
I'm fairly certain you don't think it's a lie, and you are just envious. Either way, I don't see how any of this matters. I explained why I criticized the guy, and instead of working on that, you tried to undermine the anecdotal part.
Reading the comments in this thread is very interesting to me, because each programmer seems certain of the superiority of his own programming style. We have some comments that disparage the change, saying that it obfuscates the code and makes it more difficult to understand. We have others saying that this change is a basic technique and it's "shocking" that the author wrote a book without this simple knowledge. Wha…
Early in my career, a project manager said to me, "I've never heard one programmer praise another programmer's code. They always criticize!" I think that reinforced for me both that someone's approach might be good even if it isn't my own, and also that it's important to say when something is done well. Of course, there's also just a lot of bad code out there.... :-)
A few months after I'd left I got a phone call from the guy who'd taken over the project - he rang specifically to compliment me on the code and how easy it was for him to understand what was going on and how much better that had made his work. Didn't really know how to respond as I've never had that before, but it was nice.
Not blowing my own trumpet, so to speak (although it is something I'm kinda proud of) but to provide a counter data point to your PM's
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of programmers are insecure. You mean a lot of persons? If you don't, I wonder where you got this from. Personal experience maybe? Anecdotic: I have always been good at sports, popular, and confident, and I criticized this article because he used a kind of link-bait title (should have been "Today I learned about inheritance and it's awesome", something like that), and he also turned out to be selling programm…
> Anecdotic: I have always been good at sports, popular, and confident, I'm fairly certain this is a lie, given the way you've presented yourself in this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anecdotic: I have always been good at sports, popular, and confident, I'm fairly certain this is a lie, given the way you've presented yourself in this thread.
I'm fairly certain you don't think it's a lie, and you are just envious. Either way, I don't see how any of this matters. I explained why I criticized the guy, and instead of working on that, you tried to undermine the anecdotal part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fairly certain you don't think it's a lie, and you are just envious. Either way, I don't see how any of this matters. I explained why I criticized the guy, and instead of working on that, you tried to undermine the anecdotal part.
-1 for the ad hominem: "... and you are just envious"
Also, it wasn't an ad hominem, since there wasn't any argument being debated. Get your fallacies straight.
I guess this is why you have 9999 submissions with 1 point. To be able to go around downvoting and incorrectly calling people out on a fallacy (the new trick you have learned).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Anecdotic: I have always been good at sports, popular, and confident, I'm fairly certain this is a lie, given the way you've presented yourself in this thread.
I'm fairly certain you don't think it's a lie, and you are just envious. Either way, I don't see how any of this matters. I explained why I criticized the guy, and instead of working on that, you tried to undermine the anecdotal part.
It's ok if that upsets you.
Reading the comments in this thread is very interesting to me, because each programmer seems certain of the superiority of his own programming style. We have some comments that disparage the change, saying that it obfuscates the code and makes it more difficult to understand. We have others saying that this change is a basic technique and it's "shocking" that the author wrote a book without this simple knowledge. Wha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
-1 for the ad hominem: "... and you are just envious"
Are you kidding me? I was copying his style, to show him how irrelevant and childish the statement was. Also, it wasn't an ad hominem, since there wasn't any argument being debated. Get your fallacies straight. I guess this is why you have 9999 submissions with 1 point. To be able to go around downvoting and incorrectly calling people out on a fallacy (the new trick you have learned).
I don't get it. What's the point of replying to a perceived false accusation of ad hominem with three more ad hominems?
"Get your fallacies straight", "I guess this is why you have ...", "(the new trick you have learned)"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Early in my career, a project manager said to me, "I've never heard one programmer praise another programmer's code. They always criticize!" I think that reinforced for me both that someone's approach might be good even if it isn't my own, and also that it's important to say when something is done well. Of course, there's also just a lot of bad code out there.... :-)
I spent a few years as the sole maintainer of a moderately complex enterprise app written prettly much entirely in PLSQL. Hundreds of thousands of lines of it. By the time I left a reasonable proportion of that was code I'd added. A few months after I'd left I got a phone call from the guy who'd taken over the project - he rang specifically to compliment me on the code and how easy it was for him to understand what w…
Code that is: consistent in style and approach (even if it's different to mine) easy to to reason about has clear comments detailing why something was done the way it was
is hard to do consistently, and very often stands out from the spaghetti code that's present in other parts of the system.
The reason I do this is firstly to let the person know I appreciate the effort they have gone to, and secondly to signal to the other developers on the project that this is something worth trying to attain, and at least one person values these things.