• (cs) in reply to AJR

    Oops :)  You're right, of course.

  • (cs) in reply to kipthegreat

    kipthegreat:
    RevMike:
    I write java, perl, C, and PL/SQL.  I tune SQL.  I've designed good relational schemas.  I've architected effective J2EE.  Plus I grok regex better than 95%.


    I invented my own programming language with a keyword that executes a loop exactly 65565 times.  I killed a bear with my bare hands.  I part my hair on the right.  My penis is made of solid gold and tastes like cotton candy.  I have turned down more jobs than you will ever be offered.  My laptop is so advanced they won't let me take it on airplanes.  I wear a Hawaiian shirt to work.  I drive a Dodge Stratus.  Big time stuff.

    I'm a department manager!  People are scared of me!

  • (cs) in reply to Satanicpuppy
    Satanicpuppy:

    Your analogy sucks.

    Think of it as fixing a key structural support in a building that's 200 stories high. Would you rather some schmuck maintenance guy just randomly saw it, and decided to fix it, knowing NOTHING about the true nature of the problem? Or would you rather that there was a lot of consultation and preparation and thought that went into the problem, and a good team assmbled to fix it, and the building evacuated, etc.



    And the building would collapse before you finish preparations....
    At least, with your approach, nobody dies. Hopefully.
    Anyway, if my analogy sucks, then so does yours.

    All I mean is, rules and regulations are supposed to help people. The moment they start getting in your way, you've got to ditch them. Having to go trough a whole development cycle for changing a "+ 1" is ridiculous. However important that "+ 1" might be, there are better channels for something like that - like talking to the other programmers. Oh wait, your policies forbid it. Well, good luck doing your job properly.

  • (cs) in reply to rlewallen

    I hear you... this type of code is what I have myself entitled the "Rube Goldberg Pattern".  It's the ball that drops to hit the shoe that kicks the stick which pulls the string that makes the chicken lay the egg.  All the power to them.

  • (cs) in reply to Porsche3000
    Anonymous:

    RevMike:
    Anonymous:
    Why?  WHY?!  Why is he returning the value as a recordset AND an output parameter?  WHY, GOD?!


    Some development environments prefer to deal with recordsets from databases, while others can comfortably work with scalars.  He wanted to leave that paradigm choice up to any future caller.

    Or, more likely, because it was his first time writing in T-Sql, he had a few fragments of example code, and kept trying things until it worked.  This is the same methodology that I use with VB.  I write java, perl, C, and PL/SQL.  I tune SQL.  I've designed good relational schemas.  I've architected effective J2EE.  Plus I grok regex better than 95%.  If I actually learned VB, it would make me stupider, and I wouldn't be able to do my job.

    I work with VB and earn 6 figures. 

     

    If you're the same person I know, you've probably used your name as an RC4 key in your VB code.  If you're not the same person, I certainly hope you didn't.  Either way, 6 figures or 5 figures, you should check out this article:

    http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/developer/0,39020387,39228663,00.htm

    Someone, somewhere, somehow will have to pay.

  • Alan (unregistered) in reply to Otto

    Forgot about hashing. You can search hashes in O(1). Of course it may not take less wallclock time than an O(log(n)) search ;-)

  • Krenn (unregistered) in reply to felix
    felix:
    Anonymous:
    The problem with "just changing it" is that you're making an assumption that these are both called ONLY by each other.

    If there's some second COM that does not increment, then removing the -1 from the stored proc will break it.

    Apologies if that was mentioned already, a brief skim through didn't show it.


    It was mentioned, but it didn't get the proper answer.

    What do you think source control and unit testing are good for?

    If you're using source control and unit testing, then you're not "just changing it".  You're following the correct process.
  • (cs) in reply to felix

    "All I mean is, rules and regulations are supposed to help people. The moment they start getting in your way, you've got to ditch them."

    I agree with you, but there is an issue with doing even the smallest change. It's not just how risky that particular change is, but also how you're gonna get that change to the customer. Quite often, it'll mean work for your installations guy to develop a patch for it. Depending on the system used, this in itself can be risky - both because it might pick up other files that have changed, which is more risky, and because that patch now has to be catered for (and tested) in future patches.

    Think beyond just developing your fix, and think about how it might effect other people.

  • (cs) in reply to felix
    felix:


    All I mean is, rules and regulations are supposed to help people. The moment they start getting in your way, you've got to ditch them.



    No, because they're SUPPOSED to get in your way! They exist because when a small change made carelessly can have serious consequences, the only way to be on the safe side is to allow NO change that has not been reviewed, approved and tested. You may know that the change will cause no problem and you may be competent enough to judge this correctly, but this cannot determined objectively (except through the review- approval-test cycle) and thus cannot be incorporated into the procedure.

  • sweeney todd (unregistered) in reply to brazzy

    For fuck's sake, people. The original post states that the code was new, developed by the same person, and used by no one else.

    Nobody's got a release cycle that would excuse that.

  • (cs) in reply to sweeney todd

    what sweeny said.

  • Sparky (unregistered) in reply to kipthegreat

    How many situps can you do?

  • (cs) in reply to Unknown

    Yup...

  • (cs) in reply to Otis Mukinfus

    Yeah

  • (cs)

    test (sorry)

  • (cs) in reply to vDave420
    vDave420:
    test (sorry)



    test 2 :-)
  • (cs) in reply to vDave420
    vDave420:
    vDave420:
    test (sorry)



    test 2 [:-)]
  • (cs) in reply to vDave420
    vDave420:
    vDave420:
    vDave420:
    test (sorry)



    test 2 [:-)]


    hrmm
    [pie]
  • (cs) in reply to vDave420
    vDave420:
    vDave420:
    vDave420:
    vDave420:
    test (sorry)



    test 2 [:-)]



    I can't seem to get a single emoticon to work



Leave a comment on “Working Around Yourself”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article