|
|
"I have no idea" seems to sum up about everyone I've ever worked with 
One time, I had to fix this production issue.
People were standing still and the company was losing money.
I wrote a quick fix from home, asked someone to accept the pull request ASAP and drove to the office (a good one-hour drive).
It was literally some literal string that needed to be changed, a one-word fix, so I was sure it was correct, the pull request would be accepted and everything would deploy to production automatically.
When I arrived at the office, the reviewer was waiting for me.
I had to make the literal string into a constant or he couldn't accept it 
And while I was on it, I had to do this for every literal string in this class
The code made an API call and we simply had to pass some constant codes to the API, but instead of "SomeCode" this developer wanted to see SomeCode.
I asked him if he was out of his ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) ing mind and that people were standing still over this.
He wouldn't budge and ultimately I changed one or two string literals into consts just to move it along
|
|
|
|
|
Not to defend the guy, but I suspect it all boils down to technical debt. He just didn't want to have to revisit this. He's probably got some horror stories to tell.
|
|
|
|
|
I think it was ego.
It boiled down to:
someValue = "some code"
vs.
const string SomeCode = "some code";
someValue = SomeCode You literally can't have horror stories with this.
|
|
|
|
|
May I please request if I understand correctly Is the requested change equivalent from the one below to the second below Thank You Kindly - Cheerio
struct cfoobar
{
basic_string<char> foobar() { return "some string"; }
};
struct cfoobar
{
static const basic_string<char> someString;
basic_string<char> foobar() { return someString; }
};
const basic_string<char> cfoobar::someString = "some string";
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't C(++?), but I think it comes to that, yes.
Literally this in C#: my post above[^]
|
|
|
|
|
The "senior" developer doesn't seem to be much older than the "junior" one. Not surprised they have the same reaction.
Agism. It works both ways.
|
|
|
|
|
In better workplaces, the terms senior and junior reflect domain experience, not chronological age nor the amount of time since you got your education.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Only better workplaces? If it wasn't like this, I would consider it a huge red flag.
|
|
|
|
|
There are worse workplaces, of course  ...
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
LGTM 
|
|
|
|
|
...and found this official library[^].
Works with WinForms, WPF, UWP, Console and native, as well as ASP.NET Core.
Still need to try it out. VS has decided to wonk out for some reason, and I CBA to restart my system right now to fix it.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
What does CBA mean here ? No relevant hits on Google.
Why post about it if you have not been able to use it ?
Did you take the time to look at any of the 255 open issues on the github page to see if any were relevant to your issues ?
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
Can't Be Arsed?
That was my first guess...and it fits the context...
|
|
|
|
|
what is Toast notification?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never mind.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
modified 17-Sep-21 17:37pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a backend developer who comes from a non-agile background.
Last year, when I accepted my latest position, I was told that the team uses agile.
I was eager to begin learning this new, magic method for creating software, based upon everything I had heard about agile.
But I've been in the position for a year now, and the only difference from my previous jobs to this one is that now we have morning meetings and we delineate our work into two week intervals. That's it. Is this the highly touted Agile method?
It's turned out to be a big disappointment. Is my experience typical?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
From what I have read, yes, your experience is fairly typical.
Agile is an adjective in search of a noun.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I think the true idea of Agile does not really exist or is not really implemented.
People, shops, adopt a customized version of Agile to meet their needs.
The over all idea of Agile is that you break a development project up into prioritized user stories and bugs and a certain number of these items gets worked in a sprint based on the business team needs.
One of the things that makes "Agile" effective is that the items to be worked can change in priority and the current sprint adjusted to accommodate.
All workable items are in a "backlog" and the business team, scrum master, etc. can groom/prioritize this back log and pull the items to be worked next, into the next sprint.
Note: this is probably not a great explanation but this is how I see it in my mind and how I have seen it at shops I currently work in and have worked at in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good explanation, because that's exactly what my team does. But the methodology just seems to me like common sense, not anything special that needs a special name.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
There is a lot more to it than can be covered in a quick reply. The reasoning behind which items get worked on, burn-down charts (that track progress) etc. There is a lot of overlap between "Agile' and "Scrum" which is basically a wrapper around Agile.
People implement as much or as little as they need to get the job done in an semi-organised way. You're right; ideally it turns out to be just common sense.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right about the common sense part - it is exactly that. The only problem is that common sense is not common, and often the product owner may not have it to begin with. But the product owner can be sold on a methodology that gives results - and put their faith into something that is a hot keyword of cutting edge development methodology. So we sell them on this, and turn around and implement so our developers can get at least 2 weeks of concentrated time to focus on completing features and aren't ripped back and forth on a semi-daily basis from one hot feature to another. And we actually get time to develop to the feature and (more importantly) test against the acceptance criteria. And if it isn't perfect, we can refine the requirements and make another sprint. This happened in small, managed waterfall teams from the beginning of software development, but often got lost in bureaucratic mess once companies got big enough. By formalizing this small team common sense methodology, we can keep corporate interference to a minimum. They don't join scrum meeting unless expressly invited.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
