Today in the news: Why Builds Fail
-
This absolute gem, quote: "When builds fail, due to compilation errors, it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity." Yes. Waiting for the computer to boot, that too. And sleeping for 7 hours at night. And eating, and going to the coffee machine. All these things. Did I mention design? Coding? These two REALLY use up that there productivity. :laugh:
When builds fail, that's just 'cause I'm letting the machine do the work for me. Not like in the stone ages where you had to "desk check" your code (punch cards) before turning it over to the operator. Back then, a compiler error was a *BIG* waste of time. The time spent desk checking was well worth it. Today, who cares? Let the machine figure out where the errors are.
-
This absolute gem, quote: "When builds fail, due to compilation errors, it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity." Yes. Waiting for the computer to boot, that too. And sleeping for 7 hours at night. And eating, and going to the coffee machine. All these things. Did I mention design? Coding? These two REALLY use up that there productivity. :laugh:
The biggest problem which causes lower productivity is the programmer himself. For example when he or she is reading articles or /and The Lounge :D I wonder how they missed that. How unprofessional of them.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
-
This absolute gem, quote: "When builds fail, due to compilation errors, it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity." Yes. Waiting for the computer to boot, that too. And sleeping for 7 hours at night. And eating, and going to the coffee machine. All these things. Did I mention design? Coding? These two REALLY use up that there productivity. :laugh:
Simon O'Riordan from UK wrote:
it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity.
I know, I laughed when I read that too, especially the "extra brainpower." We can't be contributing to global warming now, can we? Or heaven forbid, we ask our programmers to actually think There's a lot of times when I make a major change to an interface and rather than figure out all the dependent classes I need to touch, I just I hit the compile button and let VS tell me where the fixes need to occur (of course, if I used something like Resharper, it probably could fix them for me, but I don't, so I have no idea.) Anyways, the point is, I use the compiler as _a tool to facilitate in productivity. Marc
Latest Articles - APOD Scraper and Hunt the Wumpus Short video on Membrane Computing Hunt the Wumpus (A HOPE video)
_
-
Simon O'Riordan from UK wrote:
it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity.
I know, I laughed when I read that too, especially the "extra brainpower." We can't be contributing to global warming now, can we? Or heaven forbid, we ask our programmers to actually think There's a lot of times when I make a major change to an interface and rather than figure out all the dependent classes I need to touch, I just I hit the compile button and let VS tell me where the fixes need to occur (of course, if I used something like Resharper, it probably could fix them for me, but I don't, so I have no idea.) Anyways, the point is, I use the compiler as _a tool to facilitate in productivity. Marc
Latest Articles - APOD Scraper and Hunt the Wumpus Short video on Membrane Computing Hunt the Wumpus (A HOPE video)
_
I use the compiler in the same way when I change something that is not local to the function. The real productivity killers are the things that the compiler doesn't catch. Those that create exceptions later on (or even worse, silently fail and lead to incorrect results).
The good thing about pessimism is, that you are always either right or pleasently surprised.
-
This absolute gem, quote: "When builds fail, due to compilation errors, it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity." Yes. Waiting for the computer to boot, that too. And sleeping for 7 hours at night. And eating, and going to the coffee machine. All these things. Did I mention design? Coding? These two REALLY use up that there productivity. :laugh:
-
Quote:
extra time and brainpower
Luckily, I have a bucket of extra brainpower just over here by my spare time machine.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
I have to work with guys who think the programme should spring from the mind, fully formed. Or that confuse requirements with specifications, deliberately flaming people who take the trouble to know the difference. I'd surely hate to be recruited by one. Especially if it meant that everything I did came from the big book of programmes because it had all been done before. :(
-
Quote:
extra time and brainpower
Luckily, I have a bucket of extra brainpower just over here by my spare time machine.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Would that be a spare time-machine or a spare-time machine. Because I think the latter would be much better.
-
Would that be a spare time-machine or a spare-time machine. Because I think the latter would be much better.
-
If you had the former then you would also have plenty of the latter.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
Ah but the former is only a spare one, so it's not getting much use.
-
Simon O'Riordan from UK wrote:
it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity.
I know, I laughed when I read that too, especially the "extra brainpower." We can't be contributing to global warming now, can we? Or heaven forbid, we ask our programmers to actually think There's a lot of times when I make a major change to an interface and rather than figure out all the dependent classes I need to touch, I just I hit the compile button and let VS tell me where the fixes need to occur (of course, if I used something like Resharper, it probably could fix them for me, but I don't, so I have no idea.) Anyways, the point is, I use the compiler as _a tool to facilitate in productivity. Marc
Latest Articles - APOD Scraper and Hunt the Wumpus Short video on Membrane Computing Hunt the Wumpus (A HOPE video)
_
Now we know why the ice caps are melting! :laugh:
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
} -
Would that be a spare time-machine or a spare-time machine. Because I think the latter would be much better.
Now I want a spare-rib machine... :cool:
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
-
This absolute gem, quote: "When builds fail, due to compilation errors, it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity." Yes. Waiting for the computer to boot, that too. And sleeping for 7 hours at night. And eating, and going to the coffee machine. All these things. Did I mention design? Coding? These two REALLY use up that there productivity. :laugh:
In related news, I understand that broken cars are really affecting the productivity of mechanics. And doctors are complaining that sick people are affecting their productivity.
-
This absolute gem, quote: "When builds fail, due to compilation errors, it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity." Yes. Waiting for the computer to boot, that too. And sleeping for 7 hours at night. And eating, and going to the coffee machine. All these things. Did I mention design? Coding? These two REALLY use up that there productivity. :laugh:
As one of my college lecturers once said, code like you're stuck in the 1940's. In other words desk check it til the cows come home and ONLY then you compile. Treat the computer like it's a time share where you have to book several weeks in advance to get any run time to compile your program. A little extra time during the design cycle works wonders for bug count (compile and logic bugs), amongst other things, such as code that will run until the cows come home like in financial institutions that have been running the same code on the same machines for 40 years or more. HUZZAH for stability.
-
As one of my college lecturers once said, code like you're stuck in the 1940's. In other words desk check it til the cows come home and ONLY then you compile. Treat the computer like it's a time share where you have to book several weeks in advance to get any run time to compile your program. A little extra time during the design cycle works wonders for bug count (compile and logic bugs), amongst other things, such as code that will run until the cows come home like in financial institutions that have been running the same code on the same machines for 40 years or more. HUZZAH for stability.
Oddly enough, what you say is borne out by courses such as CMU's self-management course for softies. A detailed code walkthrough spots most errors before they get to the compiler. However, the bugs that really slow you down are nothing to do with the compiler; testing bugs(inappropriate behaviour found in testing) occupy five times the span of compiler bugs, and if you want to get your LOC/Bug ratio down to acceptable levels, it is the testing bugs you should be aiming to get down. :suss: And this is mostly about design.(If I remember right):suss:
-
Oddly enough, what you say is borne out by courses such as CMU's self-management course for softies. A detailed code walkthrough spots most errors before they get to the compiler. However, the bugs that really slow you down are nothing to do with the compiler; testing bugs(inappropriate behaviour found in testing) occupy five times the span of compiler bugs, and if you want to get your LOC/Bug ratio down to acceptable levels, it is the testing bugs you should be aiming to get down. :suss: And this is mostly about design.(If I remember right):suss:
Simon O'Riordan from UK wrote:
And this is mostly about design.(If I remember right)
Yup, and as I said, careful design will squish a lot of logic bugs as well. The bugs I find hardest to track down are what I refer to as 'incidental bugs'. Bugs that are normally not there but pop up from time to time when a user does something specific. In my experience when I am trouble shooting code the user who is reporting the bug really doesn't know how to describe what they were doing when it happened. Very frustrating.
-
Don't forget testing. That destroys productivity!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
It all went wrong when clipboards were replaced with iPads.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
-
This absolute gem, quote: "When builds fail, due to compilation errors, it requires programmers to take extra time and brainpower to find and fix the problem, reducing their productivity." Yes. Waiting for the computer to boot, that too. And sleeping for 7 hours at night. And eating, and going to the coffee machine. All these things. Did I mention design? Coding? These two REALLY use up that there productivity. :laugh:
I agree, this is a gem! BTW, this came from CIO.com, shouldn't have CIO's already have got over such bullshit quotes? http://www.cio.com/article/754704/Why_Software_Builds_Fail[^]
-
When builds fail, that's just 'cause I'm letting the machine do the work for me. Not like in the stone ages where you had to "desk check" your code (punch cards) before turning it over to the operator. Back then, a compiler error was a *BIG* waste of time. The time spent desk checking was well worth it. Today, who cares? Let the machine figure out where the errors are.
If you can't be arsed to even try and write the code correctly in the first place, I can't believe that when it does compile cleanly it will do anything reasonable.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
If you can't be arsed to even try and write the code correctly in the first place, I can't believe that when it does compile cleanly it will do anything reasonable.
Software Zen:
delete this;I try to write the code correctly. But I'm certainly not going to waste my time "desk checking" for semi-colons, and other nonsense. The compiler will tell me the details, while I work on writing code that does what it's supposed to do. Besides, I'm an old fart and I'm allowed to be lazy.
-
I try to write the code correctly. But I'm certainly not going to waste my time "desk checking" for semi-colons, and other nonsense. The compiler will tell me the details, while I work on writing code that does what it's supposed to do. Besides, I'm an old fart and I'm allowed to be lazy.
My point is that the devil is in the details:
if (condition1 | condition2);
{
Action5(0,Beta);
}See the problem?
Software Zen:
delete this;
