|
I would say "Those who think they know don't test" 
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's more scary when you don't catch any errors on a first try. Because there has to be at least one. Somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly - software with no obvious bugs is up to something!
|
|
|
|
|
[^] : the comments
Apparently this pattern of insulting and down-voting newcomers, and others, is just not going to stop.
It literally makes me sick to see this. I made a "vow" a few years ago to express my satisfaction and appreciation for many years (14+ now) of learning here on CodeProject by taking an active role on QA. Over the last few years, I have observed a very small number of individuals who have exhibited consistent anti-social, and hostile, behavior towards newcomers, and other CP members active in answering QA questions, etc.
Another disturbing pattern I have observed is that the "reputation at any cost" behavior or a few very high-rep QA posters has, in my humble opinion, had the effect of "modeling" gaming the rep system for some bright, relatively new, posters.
I have observed some of the most respected, and high-ranking, members of CP, like Marc Clifton, and Pete O'Hanlon publicly express that they ceased any regular participation in QA because of the negative behavior encountered there. Other CP members who I know are very technically competent, like Nagy Vilmos, have also publicly stated they withdrew from QA because of negative behavior there.
Yes, I have spoken out about what I observe in QA, many times over the years. I have reported comments, or solutions, as abusive when I thought it appropriate ... but, always "reluctantly."
My respected technical peers and mentors, I think "we" can do better than this.
Yes, it's "sticky:" no one wishes to see the relative (say, compared to StackOverFlow) laissez-faire ambiance of CodeProject turn into a rigid, draconian, "by the book," environment.
And, we do get people posting on QA who are obviously ... or soon prove they ... are shirking homework, are, indeed, lazy, or, who are almost hopelessly confused. imho, some of those folks deserve down-voting and removal of posts asap. But, I think no one deserves being belittled, demeaned.
As someone who has spent a significant percentage of his adult life living in Asia, I am aware of the possible difficulties for people whose mother-tongue is not English in using this site, and I am aware of the fact that for some Asian cultures what, for a western person, is a casual slight or "teasing," for an Asian person is much more than casual when seen through the lens of "face."
I'm near the point (rep level as "Authority") where I have almost reached the level I "promised" I'd achieve before dis-engaging from QA activity; my intent is to switch to writing articles.
Is it absurd, or totally unrealistic, to think "we" can do better this in QA ?
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
modified 13-May-16 9:23am.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks lika typicial answer by the one who may not be named. The first minute i saw him on CP (which is not that long ago actually) i felt pure disgust because i really don't like his attitude.
I mean even if the question was about how do i write my database in a textfile you should help and advise instead of crushing the idea of the poster by forehand. He should experience himself if the idea is good or if there is something better to apply.
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: most respected, and high-ranking, members of CP, like Marc Clifton, and Pete O'Hanlon, as well as other CP members like Nagy Vilmos
Brilliant. 
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I hadn't spotted that - was going to say I 100% agreed with Bill - except the bit about Nagy being respected 
|
|
|
|
|
Please note he said "others like Nagy". This did not necessarily include Nagy in the "respected" group but had him in another group which by boolean analysis is therefore not respected.
However, I do have respect for Nagy anyway.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Forogar, for interpreting my words as intended. I have modified my post to (I hope) make it more clear that I did not intend to slight Nagy in any way. I am aware that Nagy is very technically accomplished, I'm just not familiar with his code, and work, as I am with Marc, and Pete.
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I am aware that Nagy is very technically accomplished
It's the first time I hear that expression being used about gin swilling, but there's always a first for everything... 
Joke icon, see? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome. I like your change but it wasn't really necessary as most reasonable people would not actually interpret the original text negatively - and I try not to have anything to do with unreasonable people anyway.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Forogar wrote: However, I do have respect for Nagy anyway.
But will you have respect for him in the morning?
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I did.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
He mentions "most respected", so that eliminates you and I, for starters. 
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: that eliminates you and I, for starters.
Not necessarily ! 
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
LOL - that's what I thought too
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: they ceased any regular participation in QA because of the negative behavior encountered there.
I help out in QA because I want to help others. Other's behaviors do not make me want to stop helping people.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Other's behaviors do not make me want to stop helping people.
And, I respect the quality of your QA posts greatly !
While I try to not let others' behavior affect me, when I see unnecessary ad hominem assault on people it does bother me. I think about all the patient people who, over the years, have mentored me, and shared their knowledge generously with me, in spite of my confusion, or my inept questions.
I don't want to participate in an environment where egregious insult is common.
cheers, Bill
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: ad hominem assault on people it does bother me.
I agree.
I've actually chatted with you know who in QA and it is my opinion that he does have good intentions but I think the language barrier and cultural issues get in the way. But before I chatted with him I also felt he was quite rude so it is very understandable that most people feel that way.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
If you're talking about who I think you are, then I have similar experience: if you try and answer in a polite, factual way, you get polite, factual, and very insightful answers.
My impression is that he really wants to help, not go out to insult people. However, his experience and qualification as a programmer clearly exceeds his ability to lower his level of thinking to that of newcomers, especially those from a different culture.
That said, I agree with him that most questions need to be more concise, and newcomers need to be told just that. Putting together the individual hints to the actual problem from a rather random selection of thoughts put down in a bad imitation of english can be a very hard and time-consuming task. When I do take the time to try and help someone, I often feel more like a detective than a programmer! And the detective-part is taking way too much time for my liking...
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen that too. For me, I'm always reluctant to post a question because of that exact reason. Same goes for answering. I've had the situation where I answered the question, the person in question realized he should put more detail and does so and my answer is downvoted later on because it doesn't "answer" the OP's (new) question.
I'll not claim to never make a mistake in answering, but at least I try to be helpful.
I'm always curious why everyone is against "homework" questions though. I don't really care as long as that person proves he put in some work already to get it done (has done his/her own research), which many of "professional" people don't do either
Don't give up on answering QA's in a descent manner, if the one's giving the good (behavioral) examples disappear, who knows what will happen .
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: I don't really care as long as that person proves he put in some work already to get it done (has done his/her own research), which many of "professional" people don't do either
I guess the issue is that almost all "homework" questions show precisely zero effort; it's quite rare to find a homework question where the OP has got most of the way there, and is just stuck on part of the solution.
But when they have put some effort in, there's no excuse for down-voting or posting demeaning comments just because it's "homework".
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: why everyone is against "homework" questions though. I don't really care as long as that person proves he put in some work already
I've never answered Q&A here but did on other forums for far too long so I know that the number of people who have genuinely tried to create a solution and failed is minimal at best. My main reason for not helping with homework however is that ultimately it does not aid the learner in the long run. The teacher will be presented with a complete solution with no explanation of how it was come by and therefore no knowledge of the student's weaknesses or misunderstanding. The student will tick this off as another task completed and is very unlikely to care whether any real understanding of the points at issue has been gained. It is therefore right to see getting homework answers as cheating but it is ultimately students cheating themselves.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
|
|
|
|
|
But all of those points could just as easily apply to non-homework "no effort" questions. If someone is being paid to write code but doesn't know how to solve a basic problem, writing their code for them will not aid them in the long run. If they take your code and present it to their project manager as their own work, the PM has no knowledge of their weaknesses. The PM will keep assigning tasks, and the employee will keep expecting other people to do the work for them.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Homework is supposed to be just that - and assuming the instructor isn't trying to be an ass, the learning is in the struggle.
So - when I see a question that says "do my homework for me" I usually bypass it - it's usually addressed already, anyway. On the other hand, if they seem to be work and have just gotten stuck on something then I prefer to give the a nudge or even a push in the right direction so that they can get the answer but still learn it.
There are certainly nuances to this. And, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there are some that seem to scream out "Do My Work For Me So I Get Paid For Your Efforts". Definitely a bypass.
Q&A - if it's really done right - is a forum for teaching and not just answering. That's the good stuff - especially when they recognize what you've done is lasting.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
