Defending the Python lanuage...

[Peter Milliken]

"Cliff Wells" <logiplexsoftware at earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1012843209.19773.python-list at python.org...
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2002 08:42:58 +1100
> Peter Milliken wrote:
>
> > G'Day Cliff,
>
> Peter =)
>

[snip]

> > There are so many what I will class as "poor" programmers in the
> industry,
> > that this is a necessary technique when you have to "manage" other
> > programmers. So I assume that "continuous ongoing code review" is
similar
> to
> > my idea of "early and often"? :-)
>
> I think so.  My personal experience in working closely with another
> programmer was that we tended to write code appropriate for the other
> person to read and often discussed approaches to coding problems.  After
> discussions, prototype code was reviewed (informally) to see how our ideas
> worked out, if there were shortcomings and the like.  We never had a
> "formal" review, but since we were comfortable working with each other and
> had much mutual respect, we were able to criticize and accept criticism
> freely.
>

Hmmm.... Sounds like we have a small "disconnect" - this sounds like what I
would consider design to me - now I am in the "real" world of commercial
programming, it is becoming more and more obvious that this just doesn't
happen (design documentation I mean :-)). As a programmer for defense
contractors, you did preliminary designs and then detailed designs (with
attendant reviews) so the "coding problems" were all worked out at that
stage i.e. by the times you had sorted out design to the point of pseudo
code (or somewhere of that level) the coding became very straight forward -
and you knew it was all going to hang together! :-) (assumed that
traceability of the requirements was done correctly and no boo-boos were
made! :-)).  Perhaps I am wrong though? Anyway, it sounds like a good,
comfortable working relationship that could only help you both generate
better product.

[snip]

> Of course, the ideal programmer is the self-taught individual who later
> goes to college to raise their level of skill.
>

Whoops, got me! :-) Unfortunately I hate the discipline of "school life" - I
swore when I left Uni that I would never do it again and haven't really been
tempted since. Motification also becomes a factor in the sense that at the
moment I am in a maintenance role (only way I could get out of Defense - you
become "branded" after too many years in the one area.....), so I don't
right new code anymore, I only fix other people's screw-ups - fortunately
our stuff is all written in C so I figure I have job security for life! :-)
My company made the decision to move from Fortran to C sometime around
1995 - I killed myself laughing when I found that decision! :-) If they had
chosen differently I would probably still be stuck writing code for Combat
Systems :-) But then that was a prime example of what this thread has been
talking about - a decision that (IMO :-)) was taken with insufficient
research and thought, there were better languages that would have produced a
much more robust product in half the time (based on documented research that
was available even in those days :-)).

Hope you have a good day,
Peter