How sophisticated is your code?
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
probably more than your people would understand.
Aye, there be the truth of it. I would honestly have to answer, that one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it. The lessons learned from that experience are vast and deep. There certainly isn't anyone to blame, per se, but it revealed a variety of deficiencies dealing with motivation, education, documentation, and communication. Pretty much all the things we try to ignore. :sigh: Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
Did they have nap time and milk & cookies in the afternoon ;)
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
Did they have nap time and milk & cookies in the afternoon ;)
only two letters away from being an asset
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Did they have nap time
Oh, will they provide nap time in Office? Here for us No nap time. But we can have nice tea or coffee and cookies.
Regards, Satips.:rose:
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
How sophistacted is your code? Good question... Unfortunately, we have been trying to 'unravel' some code written by a former employee for the past year. The stored procedure seem very 'sophisticated' in that they accomplish the task by using inner selects and unions, but, there are a bear to maintain... Oh, and they are very poorly documented... In the writer's opinion, they were probably very 'sophisticated'; in my opinion, more judicious use of temporary tables and comments would have greatly relieved our stress level. As for the ASP.NET question, the answer in your post is what should be given... .NET is a technology; the .NET languages are used to implement the technology. Tim
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
probably more than your people would understand.
Aye, there be the truth of it. I would honestly have to answer, that one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it. The lessons learned from that experience are vast and deep. There certainly isn't anyone to blame, per se, but it revealed a variety of deficiencies dealing with motivation, education, documentation, and communication. Pretty much all the things we try to ignore. :sigh: Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
The lessons learned from that experience are vast and deep. There certainly isn't anyone to blame, per se, but it revealed a variety of deficiencies dealing with motivation, education, documentation, and communication.
...or you wrote messy, convoluted code. Having never seen the code I'm in no position to say one way or the other, but it doesn't hurt to consider the possibility. ;)
"Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest." - Isaac Asimov
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
Answer: "To you, probably very" :p
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.57 - now with C# 2.0 parser and seamless VS2005 solution support!
**
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
KISS : Keep It Simple Stupid Why have complex hard to maintain code when you can has it clear and easy to read.
Grady Booch: I told Google to their face...what you need is some serious adult supervision. (2007 Turing lecture) http://www.frankkerrigan.com/[^]
-
KISS : Keep It Simple Stupid Why have complex hard to maintain code when you can has it clear and easy to read.
Grady Booch: I told Google to their face...what you need is some serious adult supervision. (2007 Turing lecture) http://www.frankkerrigan.com/[^]
Not all things in life is easy/simple. If it was, life would be boring :p
**
xacc.ide-0.2.0.57 - now with C# 2.0 parser and seamless VS2005 solution support!
**
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
probably more than your people would understand.
Aye, there be the truth of it. I would honestly have to answer, that one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it. The lessons learned from that experience are vast and deep. There certainly isn't anyone to blame, per se, but it revealed a variety of deficiencies dealing with motivation, education, documentation, and communication. Pretty much all the things we try to ignore. :sigh: Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone. The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
There is a utility out there that measures code complexity metrics for C++ applications. As for C#, how can a half-ass language built on a half-ass "technology" be very complex? Sarcasm Alert: The second sentence in the statement above is sarcasm[^]. Go ahead, look it up. Oh yeah, it's okay to smirk, grin, giggle, laugh, or even guffaw in response. No, really. It is okay. However, it is NOT okay to be offended, and if you are, maybe you should take up residence in a cave somewhere and avoid any further human interaction.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
Mark Nischalke wrote:
How do you answer?
it's exactly as sophisticated as it needs to be.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
The lessons learned from that experience are vast and deep. There certainly isn't anyone to blame, per se, but it revealed a variety of deficiencies dealing with motivation, education, documentation, and communication.
...or you wrote messy, convoluted code. Having never seen the code I'm in no position to say one way or the other, but it doesn't hurt to consider the possibility. ;)
"Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest." - Isaac Asimov
Mike Mullikin wrote:
...or you wrote messy, convoluted code.
In some ways, you're right. It wasn't messy, but it was convoluted. Marc
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
How do you answer?
it's exactly as sophisticated as it needs to be.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris L. said: "it's exactly as sophisticated as it needs to be. " Then bow your head and sit calmly, quietly in the lotus position awaiting a response. -- modified at 9:26 Thursday 7th June, 2007
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peart -
Marc Clifton wrote:
one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone. The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable.
I'm going to add an entry in my blog, quoting you. That's got to be the best way of stating the problem that I've ever come across. Marc
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
(1) Compared to what? (2) that's nitpicking.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Marc Clifton wrote:
one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone. The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein The architecture should not be complex from the beginning. It should represent a complex solution to a problem domain in the simplest, and easiest understood way. The code that implements the architecture should likewise be simple, easy to understand and maintain, yet complete the complext tasks that make up the solution.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Chris L. said: "it's exactly as sophisticated as it needs to be. " Then bow your head and sit calmly, quietly in the lotus position awaiting a response. -- modified at 9:26 Thursday 7th June, 2007
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peartohmmmmm
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Did they have nap time
Oh, will they provide nap time in Office? Here for us No nap time. But we can have nice tea or coffee and cookies.
Regards, Satips.:rose:
Satips wrote:
Oh, will they provide nap time in Office?
As per laws in some countries each employer should provide at least 2 hours of nap time for all employees. When I worked in India my company also provided nap time. These days they just provide coffee and cookies in those days they provided full lunch and a nap time.
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset