One instance of an application [modified]
-
God, that must hurt. On the other hand, why not write a small sample application, demonstrate to your "head programmer" how it can be a single-instance application with the help of a named kernel object!
It is a crappy thing, but it's life -^ Carlo Pallini
Do you think he's a guy that can take from words ? or examples ? He is the most dogmatic and half-educated (i dont know if this term exists in english.In my country exists and its worse than uneducated) piece of crap i've ever met. For example , once i told him that i prefer to use enterprise library from microsoft than to write my own libs because its rather profound that i trust more microsoft's code than mine. The answer was : "I don't find the reason not to write our libs. Even microsoft's code is written by people...so why to trust it more than ours ?" Incredible ??? Do you get it now ?
-
great idea in principal but in case you hadn't noticed not many jobs around right now so wait 6 months, then quit!
That's true.
-
Please can you control you language. I don't mind commenting but I don't want to see some words!
My apologies dude.
-
If the system crashes, how do you get it going again? :~
predragzakisevic wrote:
datasets, or LinQ to SQL
Those were created to sell books, unnecessary in the real world.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Those were created to sell books, unnecessary in the real world.
He doesnt read .net documentation or books. He can found it out by himself. Seriously talking now, once called me to his office to ask me what was that :
Dictionary<string,string>giving me at last the advice to stay away from technological verbalisms. :wtf: -
My apologies dude.
No worries.. just please don't do it again.
-
I'm quite embarrased. Is it so humiliating ? I tried to close my eyes to truth but it seems a third person point of view shows the harsh reality. Thanx guys.
Each person's reaction is different for each situation. It's up to you to define what you want: - blindly chew whatever is thrown on your plate. - Choose the ingredients and the preparation method yourself. You would be surprised how many people will choose option #1 and are perfectly happy. There is NOTHING wrong with option 1. I just prefer option 2. It is more difficult, but I somehow have more satisfaction out of it. PS: I'm not talking about starting for yourself. I'm talking about the way your job should be for you. I prefer a job where creativity and innovation are encouraged ;).
V.
Stop smoking so you can: Enjoy longer the money you save. Moviereview Archive -
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
Those were created to sell books, unnecessary in the real world.
He doesnt read .net documentation or books. He can found it out by himself. Seriously talking now, once called me to his office to ask me what was that :
Dictionary<string,string>giving me at last the advice to stay away from technological verbalisms. :wtf:OMFG :wtf: This really makes me think of my teacher informatics who keeps insisting on using Access databases for EVERYTHING, and working with windows 2000 cause it's more stable >_> Respect for your position dude. I'm just happy that I don't have such an employer, and will always check their nubness level before accepting any job. Some of the ppl are just sad >_> Cheers BN
GSoC 2009 student for SMW! --- My little forums: http://code.bn2vs.com --- 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65!
-
Do you think he's a guy that can take from words ? or examples ? He is the most dogmatic and half-educated (i dont know if this term exists in english.In my country exists and its worse than uneducated) piece of crap i've ever met. For example , once i told him that i prefer to use enterprise library from microsoft than to write my own libs because its rather profound that i trust more microsoft's code than mine. The answer was : "I don't find the reason not to write our libs. Even microsoft's code is written by people...so why to trust it more than ours ?" Incredible ??? Do you get it now ?
Sounds like this guy loves to reinvent the wheel instead of using the F1 racing wheels that have been developed over years and matured into stable, proven code. Have you tried quantifying the development time in terms of labour cost to the company? and compare that to using the off the shelf tools? maybe its time to drop marketing lingo on him with "time to market" etc etc. PS: Does your forehead have a calis on it from banging your head against hte wall?
-
No worries.. just please don't do it again.
Pour some concrete on your cereal and harden up!
Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!! Booger Mobile - Camp Quality esCarpade 2010
-
Sounds like this guy loves to reinvent the wheel instead of using the F1 racing wheels that have been developed over years and matured into stable, proven code. Have you tried quantifying the development time in terms of labour cost to the company? and compare that to using the off the shelf tools? maybe its time to drop marketing lingo on him with "time to market" etc etc. PS: Does your forehead have a calis on it from banging your head against hte wall?
killabyte wrote:
Sounds like this guy loves to reinvent the wheel instead of using the F1 racing wheels that have been developed over years and matured into stable, proven code.
I admit the guy sounds like a tool, but comparing Microsoft libraries to F1 racing wheels and calling it mature and stable is a bit over the top. Submersible school bus with non functional wings, chrome plates, and 25 hood ornaments (one with a frickin lazer beam) would be a better comparison.
-
killabyte wrote:
Sounds like this guy loves to reinvent the wheel instead of using the F1 racing wheels that have been developed over years and matured into stable, proven code.
I admit the guy sounds like a tool, but comparing Microsoft libraries to F1 racing wheels and calling it mature and stable is a bit over the top. Submersible school bus with non functional wings, chrome plates, and 25 hood ornaments (one with a frickin lazer beam) would be a better comparison.
Robert Surtees wrote:
one with a frickin lazer beam
That does sound cool though!!
Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!! Booger Mobile - Camp Quality esCarpade 2010
-
OMFG :wtf: This really makes me think of my teacher informatics who keeps insisting on using Access databases for EVERYTHING, and working with windows 2000 cause it's more stable >_> Respect for your position dude. I'm just happy that I don't have such an employer, and will always check their nubness level before accepting any job. Some of the ppl are just sad >_> Cheers BN
GSoC 2009 student for SMW! --- My little forums: http://code.bn2vs.com --- 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 6D 69 6E 67 20 34 20 6C 69 66 65!
bn2vs wrote:
and will always check their nubness level before accepting any job
During the interview sessions they demonstrated the company and theirselves as truly openminded with the need to hire an experienced developer in order to accomplish a technological breakthru and update to their major product and to deliver knowledge and guiding directives to the rest of the development team. I bite that crap then and I left from my prior company which was awesome. Actually I'm the one responsible for all the development team but he doesnt let me make any decision in technical level and in case I make a decision by myself without asking him, we finally arrive at the point of how wrong was that decision and how much did i mislead the team and how much time did i spent in the wrong direction . "I want results. Keep your theoretical background for your academic carreer". Its the main moto.
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
Do you work for my previous CTO? His favorite mantra was "Keep it simple stupid" and he didn't understand any of the technical considerations required to keep a complicated, feature rich application simple. And dropping (complicated) phrases like "Data access layer", "Unit test" and "Undo / Redo Stack" would generally get a hostile response of "Wtf are you talking about? It sounds complicated." Looking back, i should have realised it was actually his lack of education and i wasn't talking shit.
------------------------------- Carrier Bags - 21st Century Tumbleweed.
-
Robert Surtees wrote:
one with a frickin lazer beam
That does sound cool though!!
Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!! Booger Mobile - Camp Quality esCarpade 2010
That's what I thought too
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
-
While he's at it why doesn't he restrict you to using only one hand on a computer without a keyboard or monitor?
Don't give him ideas...
-
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
Holy crap! Time to update the ol' resume!
Jamie Nordmeyer
Portland, Oregon, USA
http://www.feralcodemonkies.com -
Well...I wont share you the source code because its an enormous snippet. But i will narrate you the concept like a bedtime story. The technical director of our company - who is in parallel our head programmer (somebody save us)- decided to add a new feature to our super-dooper, high-end, wannabe-ERP product (riiiiiiiiiight!!!!). That was ... the very "advanced" requirement : "Our application will have only one instance.Listen how is going to be implemented..." .And then the problems just begun. "In order to implement it we'll take the ProcessId of our .exe and a timestamp of DateTime. Now to ensure its a today's instance of a process and save it to the database. So every new instance of the program will check the database to ensure if it will execute or not". I asked him very politely "What about using a mutex ?" . I almost got fired because : "You don't pay attention to the requirements and your only concern is to show off to me and to the rest of the development team with theoretical buzz-words. This is real-life programming buddy. Can you do this or not ?". No comments from me. I leave them to you. I'll keep the dissappointment. P.S. (1) The same day he forbid me to use again datasets, or LinQ to SQL because they are too complicated, too time consuming to construct, they don't ensure data integrity (???), and they oblige us to stick with a certain schema and "... I don't understand the reason for a disconnected architecture". So from now and on he commanded me to use only text queries through custom dbcommands and keep a database connection alive in a static object. (Hell yeah!!!) P.S. (2) All the above are real. :((
modified on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:54 AM
Holy crap. How brown is your boss's nose? Otherwise I simply don't understand how such a person could get into a position like that.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Holy crap. How brown is your boss's nose? Otherwise I simply don't understand how such a person could get into a position like that.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Unfortunately he owns the company... :((
-
I have to go through this s***hole. I just opened my own company and i desperately need this paycheck to cover my expenses and my company's expenses.
There is no way you are going to change this guy. The only reasonable option is to get out of there as soon as you can. I'm glad to hear that you are starting your own company, hopfully you will be able to make that your full time job soon. :) Bill W
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.