|
I think we agree, in principle, so do you also agree that using weird and esoteric features of a language is stupid?
For example, and I forget the name, the ## stuff in C++.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: do you also agree that using weird and esoteric features of a language is stupid?
Unless it is the best way to accomplish a task. But probably not unless I can see a benefit.
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
So, does C++7 allow you to implement a requirement any better than C++3?
|
|
|
|
|
I have not used c++ in over 15 years!
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
C# eh? 
(Sorry, couldnt help it. Snigger snigger...)
Because a change to the language is to make life *easier* for the programmer.
So smart pointers, well, thats because they are too lazy to put deletes in the exception handlers.
Garbage collection? Thats because they are too lazy to put deletes anywhere.
Not that these are bad features, but they dont improve the product. (In fact some make it worse, like garbage collection. Ever wondered why code these days is so big, and uses so much memory?)
The manager in the OP was absolutely right. If you dont control your nerdy devs they will f*** the product up with complexity and shite features, ,just because they like playing with new toys. (This is why so many devs are NOT engineers).
And that explains why 'oldversion.com' exists, because devs f***ed it up.
The manager is right to put a tight rein on them.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: C# eh?
Yes, c++ was too simple - needed more of a challenge. 
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: Yes, c++ I was too simple - needed more too much of a challenge.
FIFY.
I take your lack of response as implicit agreement about the rest of my post.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I take your lack of response as implicit agreement about the rest of my post
If that makes you feel better...
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
"Junior Devs" is often code for "the boss". And if the Boss wants to see the code in a certain way, that is the way you do it, I suppose.
Brent
|
|
|
|
|
you seem to have the know how !
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
convert it all to visual basic: boss should have no problems with a simpler programming language.
This internet thing is amazing! Letting people use it: worst idea ever!
|
|
|
|
|
Visual Basic is a simpler, easier to read language that can do anything that C# can do — both are converted to the same "executable" language. For highly regulated industries where audits of all kinds are a constant interruption, it has the advantage of being understandable to the auditors. I would rather code in Visual Basic and get something done than waste spend my time explaining C# code to accountants!
__________________
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that there are some things I just can’t keep up with, the determination to keep up with the things I must keep up with, and the wisdom to find a good RSS feed from someone who keeps up with what I’d like to, but just don’t have the damn bandwidth to handle right now.
© 2009, Rex Hammock
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe a few walk-through session for the junior devs would be adequate.The so called junior devs need to basically maintain or add features, they are not expected to scrap the whole project just because LINQ or reflection is used. As such code is normally optimized / refactored , re-written and not dumbed down! (Maybe if it was the old days where you hardcode everything !!!). Besides , later the junior devs can become senior devs...
Besides there would be documentation on how to work say MVC or other frameworks in which the code would be organized.
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
abmv wrote: Maybe a few walk-through session for the junior devs would be adequate.
Yeah, unfortunately, management's view of training consists of watching Pluralsight videos rather than learning things directly from the senior devs on code that is actually relevant to the company and job.
|
|
|
|
|
Usually the management should be in agreement that in-house training ( or sessions) for developers should be conducted periodically by the senior devs or the software architect, how boring they may be , but it is in they interest of the company to do so.Say the senior dev is on vacation.This could be pro-actively arranged and attendance recorded.This could be done with each major release or milestone of the project.
Pluralsight videos or online tutorial are for people starting to code or learning and not even for junior devs.
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
modified 29-May-18 14:08pm.
|
|
|
|
|
My small team is highly vertically stacked. Our new management declared we would cross train each other. It is all great on paper, but the stress of learning a departed developer's undocumented code in every silo is palpable. In-house training sessions would be a joy in comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Try "Watching You-Tube" Marc 
Pluralsight costs money remember
Oh and your only allowed to learn during lunch breaks and out-of work time too...
|
|
|
|
|
My boss gives me grief for daring to read and understand CodeProject articles to improve my skills on company time!
The ironic thing is that I limit my learning to material that I could apply at work, where I a limited to Visual Studio 2010 and SQL Server 2012! My desktop is 2 gigs of memory with 72 gigs of disk space. He is the kind of boss who does not trust his underlings to work while not in his sight
At home, I currently use Visual Studio 2017 (community edition) and I just installed SQL Server 2017 (developer edition) on a desktop with 8 gigs of memory and a terabyte of disk space.
__________________
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that there are some things I just can’t keep up with, the determination to keep up with the things I must keep up with, and the wisdom to find a good RSS feed from someone who keeps up with what I’d like to, but just don’t have the damn bandwidth to handle right now.
© 2009, Rex Hammock
|
|
|
|
|
I document, in line, all but the most standard and obvious code.
If that's not enough - well - HR should get on the case.
Being a tad cynical (for a change). It just seems a way to hire cheaper help, or even ship it overseas to the drone armies.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no. 
We're done for.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like developers these days are only as good as the answers they get from QA!
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't high level managers be required to have all their management (mis)functionality documented in case the company needs to replace them quickly? 
It should all be dumbed down (Oh wait...too late -- ) so anyone can replace them.
Oh, yeah, right you can't really document anything they do because it is so _dynamic_. 
|
|
|
|
|
Been there, (haven't) done that 
It's an upside down world really.
I can't imagine this happening in any other field.
Heck, most stuff wouldn't work at all if kids who just got out of school had to be able to understand it.
Guy at NASA: Guys, guys, we've been doing things all wrong!
Other guy: What do you mean?
First guy: I just spoke to an intern and he doesn't really understand how rockets work...
Third guy: So what do you suggest we do?
First guy: Well...[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I can't imagine this happening in any other field.
It's called "deskilling" and it's been happening for a long time: things are designed so idiots can maintain / fix them. Think of cars - how many mechanics can swap a bearing instead of a whole assembly? Or strip a brake caliper and replace the seals, rather than fit a new caliper? How many electronic repairs are done with a soldering iron, instead of a screwdriver and a new PCB?
And it's been apparent that many of the new "developers" we get in QA believe in the "bolt on component" approach to coding ...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it's exactly the same.
I know nothing about cars, especially not in English, so I can't really follow you analogy
In software I'm also about "bolt on component" where possible.
Things should be easy to use even though it was hard to write.
In a car you'll need a combustion engine, but in software it's possible to go for a Flinstones approach (and somehow often done that way) because an engine is too difficult.
However, when you have the engine some maintenance tasks are pretty easy, like changing oil or coolant.
What my boss asked, and I'm guessing what Marc is talking about, we need the complex combustion engine, but it has to be maintained and understood at a deep level by the people who usually change a bolt.
Since that's pretty much impossible you'll end up with a Flinstones car after all
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
