• antifrist (unregistered)

    WHAT LANGUAGE IS THIS?!

  • Pero perić (unregistered) in reply to antifrist
    antifrist:
    WHAT LANGUAGE IS THIS?!
    Business language
  • Pixa (unregistered) in reply to antifrist
    antifrist:
    WHAT LANGUAGE IS THIS?!
    SQL Reporting Services expression syntax looks like the combination of Access's syntax and VB.NET... Oh the memories.
  • Eric (unregistered) in reply to Pero perić

    COBOL???

  • (cs) in reply to Pero perić

    It's fucking Business Language, yeah?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr3eT3kZz4A

  • (cs)

    So the previous guru tricked his peers into thinking he wasn't full of shit?

  • Geoff (unregistered) in reply to Pero perić

    Its Microsoft's SSRS rdl (SQL Server Reporting Services report definition language), its scary. Its also considerably less WTFy than other popular solutions out there.

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered)

    Holy crap it looks like wiki template macros. My goggles, they did nothing.

  • (cs) in reply to Geoff

    It may be "less" WTF-y, but I do not believe there exists a reporting solution which isn't a complete WTF.

  • Hasse (unregistered)

    It's Excel or OO/LO Calc!

  • (cs)

    "At long last, they had found their replacement guru"

    Had they not?

  • Doctor_of_ (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    Holy crap it looks like wiki template macros. My goggles, they did nothing.

    No wonder they failed. Looks like this was designed especially to penetrate the Federation googles. OTOH, I think we found a place where Brainf*ck couldn't do more damage.

  • (cs) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    My goggles, they did nothing.
    Quite. It's when I see things like this that I wonder whether anyone ever before thought “there must be a better way”.
  • (cs)

    But Jonathan changed the string they were looking for from "Redemptions" to "Overview". Not to mention that it used to only match when one whole parameter was "Redemptions" and now it matches if a parameter simply contains "Overview", for instance, if they selected "WTF Overview".

  • Jonathan Mooney (unregistered)

    I'm still shocked when I see this....and im finding more and more as I go along!!!

  • Will Bones (unregistered)

    In my RSS reader (feedly) this came through as broken HTML, span tag after span tag that used ' instead of ".

    Not knowing anything about SQL Reporting Services I thought it might be some perversion of HTML, so I dumped it into a doc and named it wtf.html. What rendered, out of all the spans in the post, was still wtf, and after coming here to the original post I see it as it was intended.

    Regardless, editors, you may want to look at how your syndication is being parsed, particularly in readers that only support the most basic markup, not colorization.

  • EvilSnack (unregistered)

    Having a guru--that is, a person in a team that other team members chronically rely on for expertise--is a sign of management failure. (Note that this is not the Dilbert version of a guru, which is a person whose utterances are treated by management as if they had descended from heaven on stone tablets, accompanied by angels with trumpets.)

    We call it the Truck Number: "How many people in our department can be hit by trucks on the way to work this morning before we become unable to function?" Good managers always strive to push the Truck Number up. (Other people have other names for this concept, which I am sure will be made known in upcoming comments.)

    Captcha 'verto': Vini, vidi, verto!

  • (cs) in reply to EvilSnack
    EvilSnack:
    Having a guru--that is, a person in a team that other team members chronically rely on for expertise--is a sign of management failure. (Note that this is not the Dilbert version of a guru, which is a person whose utterances are treated by management as if they had descended from heaven on stone tablets, accompanied by angels with trumpets.)

    We call it the Truck Number: "How many people in our department can be hit by trucks on the way to work this morning before we become unable to function?" Good managers always strive to push the Truck Number up.

    But upper management only gets the big bonuses with a tiny payroll, which tends to push the truck number down.
  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to EvilSnack
    EvilSnack:
    Having a guru--that is, a person in a team that other team members chronically rely on for expertise--is a sign of management failure.

    The way I've always put it is "if you have someone on your team who simply cannot be replaced, you should fire them immediately".

  • Alexandros (unregistered) in reply to Pixa
    Pixa:
    antifrist:
    WHAT LANGUAGE IS THIS?!
    SQL Reporting Services expression syntax looks like the combination of Access's syntax and VB.NET... Oh the memories.

    Looks more like a wall of text. Perfect for smashing one's face.

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    EvilSnack:
    Having a guru--that is, a person in a team that other team members chronically rely on for expertise--is a sign of management failure.

    The way I've always put it is "if you have someone on your team who simply cannot be replaced, you should fire them immediately".

    That's the sort of sentiment that leads to the situation described in the article. See, what your strategy leads to is shuffling off anyone who gains enough experience to be mildly competent. Leaving only the even less competent to pick up the slack. Eventually one of them will rise above and gain some competency, thereby becoming the "new Guru" and becoming "irreplaceable." At which point you "fire" them, or more likely as in the article stop providing incentives for them to stick around. They leave and the cycle begins anew.

  • (cs)

    "we need more brick-layer and masons and fewer architect"

    -Nagesh 2013.

  • My name is irrelevant (unregistered)

    Regarding SQL in general:

    Due to a recent incident, I request that the WHERE clause becomes mandatory for UPDATE statements...

  • (cs)

    If that's all it takes to become a guru, then I'm a guru too.

    Read my name, then sing the song: I'm a guru, He's a guru, Don't you want to be a guru too.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to Snooder
    Snooder:

    That's the sort of sentiment that leads to the situation described in the article. See, what your strategy leads to is shuffling off anyone who gains enough experience to be mildly competent. Leaving only the even less competent to pick up the slack. Eventually one of them will rise above and gain some competency, thereby becoming the "new Guru" and becoming "irreplaceable." At which point you "fire" them, or more likely as in the article stop providing incentives for them to stick around. They leave and the cycle begins anew.

    I think you're missing the point. Gurus are dangerous, because they are little reservoirs of private knowledge which they have not managed to make available to aynone else in the business. They are dangerous because they cause your business to rely on one single point of failure, and they don't do anything about it. Fire them. Face it, you're going to lose this person sooner or later. If they were capable of sharing information, they wouldn't be a "guru". You might as well lose them at a time of your choosing than to wait for them to have a heart attack or crack their head skiing or otherwise kick the bucket unexpectedly.

  • C-Derb (unregistered) in reply to EvilSnack
    EvilSnack:
    Having a guru--that is, a person in a team that other team members chronically rely on for expertise--is a sign of management failure. (Note that this is not the Dilbert version of a guru, which is a person whose utterances are treated by management as if they had descended from heaven on stone tablets, accompanied by angels with trumpets.)

    We call it the Truck Number: "How many people in our department can be hit by trucks on the way to work this morning before we become unable to function?" Good managers always strive to push the Truck Number up. (Other people have other names for this concept, which I am sure will be made known in upcoming comments.)

    Captcha 'verto': Vini, vidi, verto!

    We talk about winning the lottery instead of being hit by a truck/bus/train....
  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to C-Derb
    C-Derb:
    We talk about winning the lottery instead of being hit by a truck/bus/train....

    We talk about winning the truck lottery.

  • d.k.ALlen (unregistered) in reply to My name is irrelevant
    My name is irrelevant:
    Regarding SQL in general:

    Due to a recent incident, I request that the WHERE clause becomes mandatory for UPDATE statements...

    Like this: Blah blah blah WHERE TRUE blah blah

    Right?

  • SSRS Novice (unregistered)

    @Pixa That is MDX - Multidimensional Expression; for querying SQL Server's multidimensional Cubes.

  • AC (unregistered) in reply to EvilSnack
    EvilSnack:
    Having a guru--that is, a person in a team that other team members chronically rely on for expertise--is a sign of management failure.
    and solution is ofc to fire the gurus and hire persons nobody can rely on.
  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to AC
    AC:
    EvilSnack:
    Having a guru--that is, a person in a team that other team members chronically rely on for expertise--is a sign of management failure.
    and solution is ofc to fire the gurus and hire persons nobody can rely on.

    Or hire a team based on multiple layers of redundant competency, not a "ninja" and a bunch of drones.

  • (cs)

    Guys, guys... I don't think the language is the problem.

  • Skandranon (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    AC:
    EvilSnack:
    Having a guru--that is, a person in a team that other team members chronically rely on for expertise--is a sign of management failure.
    and solution is ofc to fire the gurus and hire persons nobody can rely on.

    Or hire a team based on multiple layers of redundant competency, not a "ninja" and a bunch of drones.

    But that's more a problem of the drones, not the ninja.

  • Ozz (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Gurus are dangerous, because they are little reservoirs of private knowledge which they have not managed to make available to aynone else in the business. They are dangerous because they cause your business to rely on one single point of failure, and they don't do anything about it. Fire them.
    You're ass-u-me-ing that the failure to pass on knowledge is the fault of the guru. Maybe his cow-orkers are too dumb to comprehend it?
  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to Skandranon
    Skandranon:

    But that's more a problem of the drones, not the ninja.

    Actually, no, the problem is in your organization and your expectations. Hire someone who doesn't work well with others, and put them at the top of the pyramid, and everyone else there will either act like a drone, or they'll quit, or you'll fire them, because they're upsetting your expensive ninja. So the second-best case for all concerned there is that you get actual drones, because they'll at least be happy acting like drones. Best case, you fire the "rock star" so you can have a team, but if you're stupid enough to hire the "rock star" in the first place, you're probably too stupid to learn from your mistakes.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to Ozz
    Ozz:
    You're assuming that the failure to pass on knowledge is the fault of the guru. Maybe his coworkers are too dumb to comprehend it?

    I suppose that's possible, but that requires that we assume many, many mistakes in hiring, and not just one.

    So in that case, the problem is still organizational: the people doing the hiring are not just stupid but calamitously stupid, and disaster is imminent. If this is the case, and we're assuming the "guru" is not the idiot, then they should be able to work this out. So if they're still there and not looking for the next gig, this story doesn't hold together.

    Apply trwtf's scalpel: always prefer the solution which assumes the fewest abject morons.

  • jugis (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    The way I've always put it is "if you have someone on your team who simply cannot be replaced, you should fire them immediately".
    So you punish the competent person for your poor management that got you into that situation in the first place?
  • nitePhyyre (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf

    @trtrwtf: So you have a guru who had developed a bunch of knowledge and has documented/shared it. The company now relies on this person if they want to avoid bankruptcy. You also have a manager who has allowed this situation to arise, who never created any standards for documentation or if there are standards didn't enforce them, who never even asks the guru to share what they know. Or worse, the guru wants to share their information and the manager is telling them "there isn't time for that garbage, get back to work!"

    You choose to fire the guru

    tl;dr -You have a great coder who is doing his job, who the company relies on. He isn't the best team player. -You have a manager who isn't doing their job, and who has caused the company to find itself in a precarious position.

    • You choose to fire the great coder.

    That like saying "Our store is locked at night by this padlock. If we lost the one key, we wouldn't be able to open the store and we would be screwed, what can we do to not be screwed?" a) Change the pad lock for a combination lock that can be easily shared b) Copy the keys so that the problem is solved c) Throw out the key and get screwed immediately

    and you choose 'c'. wtf?

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to jugis
    jugis:
    trtrwtf:
    The way I've always put it is "if you have someone on your team who simply cannot be replaced, you should fire them immediately".
    So you punish the competent person for your poor management that got you into that situation in the first place?

    No, you don't punish anyone. You shed liability. If this person likes to build silos, let them do so - elsewhere.

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Apply trwtf's scalpel: always prefer the solution which assumes the fewest abject morons.
    Sort of the opposite of Hanlon's razor.
  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to nitePhyyre
    nitePhyyre:
    -You have a great coder who is doing his job, who the company relies on. He isn't the best team player. -You have a manager who isn't doing their job, and who has caused the company to find itself in a precarious position. - You choose to fire the great coder

    Did you ever see a "guru" who was a great coder? I never have. Every really great programmer I've ever known (and there have been a fair few) has been about making the other people around them better at what they do, not adding floors to their tower of specialness.

    You're right, there is a management failure here as well, but the immediate point of failure is Mr. Special. Start there.

    and you choose 'c'

    Actually, I chose 'a'. I got rid of the old busted lock.

  • feedly user (unregistered) in reply to Will Bones
    Will Bones:
    In my RSS reader (feedly) this came through as broken HTML, span tag after span tag that used ' instead of ".

    Recently, Feedly has trouble handling 

     tag since it migrate from google reader backend to their own in-house feed parser.
  • (cs) in reply to Eric
    Eric:
    COBOL???

    No, COBOL actually works.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    trtrwtf:
    Apply trwtf's scalpel: always prefer the solution which assumes the fewest abject morons.
    Sort of the opposite of Hanlon's razor.

    Sort of. More like a complement to it.

    Maybe I should say instead "do not needlessly multiply morons".

  • nmare (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    It may be "less" WTF-y, but I do not believe there exists a reporting solution which isn't a complete WTF.

    i confirm...

    im working with DTS2000, SSRS/SSAS/SSIS and Oracle warehouse builder...

    Give me a cobol job please!

  • (cs) in reply to trtrwtf

    I just start by assuming that everyone is an abject moron.

    That way, everything in the world starts to make complete sense, and I cannot be disappointed by my fellow humans, only pleasantly surprised.

  • Canuck (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    eViLegion:
    trtrwtf:
    Apply trwtf's scalpel: always prefer the solution which assumes the fewest abject morons.
    Sort of the opposite of Hanlon's razor.

    Sort of. More like a complement to it.

    Maybe I should say instead "do not needlessly multiply morons".

    That should be 'Do not multiple morons beyond necessity'

  • F (unregistered) in reply to jugis
    jugis:
    trtrwtf:
    The way I've always put it is "if you have someone on your team who simply cannot be replaced, you should fire them immediately".
    So you punish the competent person for your poor management that got you into that situation in the first place?

    Of course. Standard management technique. If you don't understand that, you'll never make manager.

  • golddog (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    Apply trwtf's scalpel: always prefer the solution which assumes the fewest abject morons.
    Why would anyone who's been in the working world more than just a little while make this assumption?

    Seems as if it might be safer to assume that people are stupid until they prove themselves otherwise.

  • (cs) in reply to F
    The Bible:
    Thou shalt not tolerate morons willingly.

Leave a comment on “We're Going to Need Another Guru!”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article