 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Actually, I think that's a good question for the next person I interview for
> a commercial position: "Have you added functionality to any open source
> project?" Yes. "Show me the documentation you wrote for programmers who
> come after you." Ooops. No wonder software is so unreliable.
That's a good one. Even if it can't serve as a pass/fail criterion (you better
not expect any applicants passing this one ;)) it may kick even the
best-prepared know-all smartass into defensive mode :P
(*Rushes off to hastily throw together a rudimentary doc about POV radiosity and
subsurface scattering...*)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > Actually, I think that's a good question for the next person I interview for
> > a commercial position: "Have you added functionality to any open source
> > project?" Yes. "Show me the documentation you wrote for programmers who
> > come after you." Ooops. No wonder software is so unreliable.
>
> That's a good one. Even if it can't serve as a pass/fail criterion (you better
> not expect any applicants passing this one ;)) it may kick even the
> best-prepared know-all smartass into defensive mode :P
>
> (*Rushes off to hastily throw together a rudimentary doc about POV radiosity and
> subsurface scattering...*)
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> (you better not expect any applicants passing this one ;))
*I* would pass it! :-) Seriously, it boggles me that there are people
smart enough to do a week's worth of coding without ever having to write
anything down.
It's not that hard to do. You just spend 20 minutes writing down what you're
planning to do as you plan it. A one-page "this is how the code is laid out"
document does wonders.
What would you rather interface to: A protocol specified by an RFC, or a
protocol specified by a big chunk of C code?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> *I* would pass it! :-) Seriously, it boggles me that there are people
> smart enough to do a week's worth of coding without ever having to write
> anything down.
Well, when not coding for cash, I typically just happily hack away in some kind
of "autopilot" mode, interspersing a few comments (typically to other people's
code I didn't fully understand at first glance ;)), until I run into something
seriously complicated - usually involving a non-trivial interface between two
modules or such, with a chance of generating deadlocks, race conditions,
unhandled errors, and/or poorly defined responsibilities.
At that point, I first take a pee, then a *deep* breath, then hack up about a
page's worth of comments into the source code file (or a separate file
occasionally) about how I want the things to interface, find that there are
loopholes, replace half of the smash with a better approach or more precise
description, and iterate over and over again until I have a clear, airtight
contract for the interface to stick to. Which may take a few hours, or
occasionally days.
*Then* I continue coding.
> It's not that hard to do. You just spend 20 minutes writing down what you're
> planning to do as you plan it. A one-page "this is how the code is laid out"
> document does wonders.
I'm not really good at 20-minutes-docs: As soon as I start documenting, I just
can't keep myself from drilling down into all the details...
> What would you rather interface to: A protocol specified by an RFC, or a
> protocol specified by a big chunk of C code?
Why, the RFC of course.
Note however that the task of interfacing to a protocol is somewhat different
from doing maintenance work on an existing piece of software.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Note however that the task of interfacing to a protocol is somewhat different
> from doing maintenance work on an existing piece of software.
Depends on the kind of maintenance. I'd say using a complicated library, or
porting it to a new environment, is much closer to interfacing to a protocol
than it is to maintaining the library.
Sure, fixing someone else's code, or adding functionality? You're going to
need to read the code. Documentation that tells you what code you don't need
to read would be great.
Figuring out what goes in the configuration files based by reading the
configuration file parser? Sucktastic.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> What would you rather interface to: A protocol specified by an RFC, or a
> protocol specified by a big chunk of C code?
What if nobody intended the protocol to be used by any other software in the
first place? (making it technically hard to fork the software)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> What would you rather interface to: A protocol specified by an RFC, or a
>> protocol specified by a big chunk of C code?
>
> What if nobody intended the protocol to be used by any other software in the
> first place? (making it technically hard to fork the software)
Let's exclude from discussion open source software the author doesn't want
you to look at, hmm? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Judging from thedailywtf.com, proprietary code isn't always much better
>> either.
>
> Quite true, but for different reasons. :-)
See Step 1:
http://blog.objectmentor.com/articles/2008/03/05/clues-for-reading-new-code
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/4/2009 5:42 PM, clipka wrote:
> At that point, I first take a pee, then a *deep* breath,
I totally understand, peeing always makes me breathe hard, too! :)
--
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> On 4/4/2009 5:42 PM, clipka wrote:
>> At that point, I first take a pee, then a *deep* breath,
>
> I totally understand, peeing always makes me breathe hard, too! :)
Me too, except after asparagus.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
