|
It's a great way of learning more about what it is that you're making, which can help you to do your own bits easier.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Suggest you agree the standards and process in advance - by discussion not by dictat.
|
|
|
|
|
Code reviews can be a very good idea, provided that the standards the code is to adhere to are agreed in advance, and everybody remembers that the purpose is to improve code quality, not score points by nit-picking every tiny detail to make the author look like an idiot and everyone else feel "big and strong".
Used well, they are an definite plus: used badly they are a tool for workplace bullying and can destroy morale in a department.
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: and down if you think they are the devil's work!
not fair! Downvoting is disabled. 
I guess it kinda depends on how, when, etc the code reviews are done.
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: My belief is that code reviews will help ensure standards are kept,
I love reviews, but not for the sake of a "standard". I could not care less about whether you think each instance member needs be prefixed with this., whether private members are preceded with the term "private".
If it does not add value (and only cost), then the best practice would state to not enforce the standards.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
well there are standards, and there are standards.
My view of any standard is that it should have a reason for existing.
If there is a good reason for using this. over not using this. then it should be adopted as a standard. If there is no compelling reason then there shouldn't be a standard.
The important thing to remember, though, is that one man's "but its obvious" is another man's "Wow! I didn't realise" - so having standards with explanations is a good idea - especially for those less experienced in that area of code.
A good example, I think, is in Wpf - where many a standard says "thou shalt not write any code behind"
well that is obviously bollocks (IMHO) and should be more like "thou shalt not put business logic in the code behind".
And that is where a code review comes in handy, as then more than one pair of eyes can look at any code and decide if it is business logic or not.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: well there are standards, and there are standards.
A standard means that you follow Microsofts' guidelines[^], as opposed to inventing your own "standard". Nine of ten times, the terms coding convention and code reviews means a subset of forementioned document, without any argumentation and a lot of fruitless discussions.
_Maxxx_ wrote: My view of any standard is that it should have a reason for existing.
FxCop will give it to you as soon as you break one of those rules. That should give enough indication on whether or not the deviation is logical or not.
_Maxxx_ wrote: If there is a good reason for using this. over not using this. then it should be adopted as a standard.
Stop talking about it, follow the standard, omit it. The same goes for declaring things "private"; learn what the default access modifier is for your language, and start following the standard. Omitting the obvious makes code a lot more readable.
..and that's why we wanted that standard in the first place.
_Maxxx_ wrote: having standards with explanations is a good idea - especially for those less experienced in that area of code.
Making code readable does far more to help the less experienced. And any standard without argumentation should be dismissed without argumentation.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Do I think code reviews should be done and can be useful? Yes...
However, before a code review can be done to
_Maxxx_ wrote: ensure standards are kept
, then said standards must have been developed ahead of time and the reasoning for the standard should be described in the standard. "Because I said so" is not a reason.
If you are going to write code that is going to be reviewed, be prepared to both document and explain in person any processing that others may not have seen.
In the late '80s I was involved in rewriting two systems to move them to a new platform. Code review was in place for both rewrites.
One of the 'standards' was: all file names must be 9 characters and the routine name in the file must match the file name. Since the first 3 characters described the system, that left 6 characters to define a meaningful file and routine name. This standard was quickly abandoned for routine names because they were much more cryptic than meaningful; this was for a system with over 500 routines in a single executable.
And the reasoning for the standard? The old platform was limited in the length of a file name size, and the standards developers didn't check the system capabilities on the new platform.
While reviewing code (FORTran), I encountered something I had never seen before (a multiple return) and asked the developer about it. His reply, "It's a multiple return". He either could not or would not describe it in any other terms. I finally replied, "And telling me a car is a car is only useful if I understand what a car is." At that point, he said, "I'll rewrite the code". Again, nothing wrong with the code, but the developer could not explain what is was doing.
Just my thoughts...
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: The other developers think it is a waste of time except for new developers
having their code reviewed (presumably until they can be trusted)
They are wrong.
_Maxxx_ wrote: My belief is that code reviews will help ensure standards are kept, enhance the
learning of all the developers, and help drive any changes in standards.
Standards mean little in terms of actual quality unless reviews, not just code reviews, are taken seriously. Reviews of the entire process lead to many types of improvements where as style guidelines have a very small impact.
They do increase learning. One is exposed different expressions immediately rather than just via maintenance.
It also insures adherence to requirements in that reviews at least have the possibility that they might cause a failure of a requirement in another part of the system, before that system reaches testing (which would hopefully demonstrate it regardless.)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2__Q52GAU[^] (Video, SFW)
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I'm betting faked.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I'm betting faked.
I guess you did not watch till the end. It was faked. It was just a TV. Hah! Funny! 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Now either you are being sarcastic, joking, trolling, or think I am as thick as a plank - which is it?
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Come on. I even put the
How about 3 out of 4?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
The "interviews" weren't faked, but the "window" was faked. The reactions were real.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know the interviews/reactions weren't faked?
I would stake a large amount of money that they were acting.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, I don't "know", but they sure looked real to me. Maybe I'm just gullible.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what country it was in (I had the sound off), but I would imagine that in many countries, if someone pulled that prank on genuine job applicants the only winners would be the lawyers.
Certainly if someone pulled it on me, the second I realised it was a prank I would fake a heart atack.
But I don't think the producers would even attempt to scare the bejesus out of people like that - much easier to fake it and ensure the reactions they needed.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Maxxx, you are just a party pooper. I want them to be real reactions!
(but you have a point)
Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious, since Windows no longer ships with HyperTerminal, what those who deal with this archaic technology use for terminal emulation. Anyone involved in SCADA or factory automation probably has need for a terminal emulator over RS232 or RS485 on a regular basis, so there are likely to be several products still on the market.
What's your favorite, and why?
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, Dave! I'll give it a try as soon as I can get a USB to Serial converter; our new SCADA computer left out that important feature, too. 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I use whatever I can download in a hurry. I try to stay away from serial in the SCADA world, its almost unavoidable but manufacturers are starting to realize that its going the way of the Dodo.
For legacy devices I usually get a gateway, usually if I'm going Modbus RTU to TCP I work with Moxa equipment. I usually do my best to pick equipment that doesn't have serial, or if I do, I buy the proper gateways and translators to get them into a modern network.
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the electric power industry is far behind the rest of the world. My boss still doesn't quite trust solid state relays, and would prefer that we protect our lines and substations with the electromechanical sort. Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories (SEL, INC) pioneered solid state relays, and produces some of the best, but they still think RS232 is pretty neat. We just got a notice that our satellite clock modules have a glitch, and the only way to update the firmware is via a serial port. 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
