|
Happy dev teams write better code, faster. That's a fact. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, training them to scale their attention for you according to the monthyl productivity review should be easy.
|
|
|
|
|
The conclusion from the article could better be expressed as "Happier people self-score higher in subjective measures"... of to put it another way "Happier people are happier" 
|
|
|
|
|
So if happier is happier is happier is happier... We will all explode from happiness thus making happier programmers actually non-productive! Counter productive even, as all the non-happy employees get to clean up the mess instead of doing their job... Which, of course, makes them even more unhappy (which, after all, may not be such a bad thing).
|
|
|
|
|
Ma mumma always said: happy is as happy does
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan Edwards Jones wrote: "Happier people are happier"
Whoa, whoa, there Poindexter. Go a little slower for those of us trying to follow that logic. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
The genius in the original article wrote:
The numbers say it all.
The happiest employees are:-
180 percent more energized
155 percent happier with their jobs
150 percent happier with life
108 percent more engaged
50 percent more motivated
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I guess my joke was funnier in my head. I was trying to make a joke about the logic behind, "Happy people are happy". Alas. I shall try harder in the future. ;(
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
It was funny - unfortunately the residual aftertaste of the article itself was still in my system 
|
|
|
|
|
No, happy people are more productive. Someone who is not happy will not be as motivated.
Doesn't mean that you can increase production by increasing happiness though; the mood is often the result of work, not the other way around. It also seems logical that people who are confronted with less problems, less things that explode, and fewer unreasonable customers might be somewhat happier doing their tasks. Someone who dreads to talk to the customer will find an excuse not to pick up the phone today and postpone it.
The thing that was surprising is the idea that we had to wait until the development of "Agile" before we realised this. Good someone invented this "agile" thingy.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Happy: working with smart people that are mutually supportive, as opposed to working with idiots that drag the whole team down.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
There’s nothing wrong with app install ads, but too often now, you click on a mobile search result, and when the site loads, a giant app install interstitial pops up that prompts you to install that site’s app. "Permission to sing boisterously, sir?"
|
|
|
|
|
A simple bug in Visual Studio meant that source code that was destined for a secure and private source code repository was instead published to a public repository. What followed was a sequence of events which left me with a $6,500 bill. "This is my private life. I have no friends to fear."
|
|
|
|
|
The "good" people at M.S. must have all retired.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Hanselman's on vacation (and re-marrying apparently), Phil Haack left (for GitHub, though), and The Gu got promoted.
So yeah, maybe you're right. 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW, it's actually a bug in the VS Git Extension, which is a separate project not maintained by MS.
While the patch[^] looks like an ...ahem... misbehavior of some viewmodelbindingstuff, it's pretty appaling to consider that this option might not have been tested.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but in my opinion this is actually his fault. He checked in an unencrypted access key to a repository (private or public does not matter). Additionally he completely relied on the GUI. I would always check for a working software, especially with a new setup. Finally his reaction was way too naive.
Blaming it now on Microsoft or the (free) GitHub extension is understandable, but does not take away the fact that he is responsible for his actions.
Note: Private on GitHub means "not for all GitHub users". It does not mean "exclusive for you". Hence if somebody hacks the GitHub server or has administrative rights, he will be able to see your (private) repositories as well. Checking in unencrypted keys there is just foolish.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Private or public doesn't matter, the cloud is just not the place to store sensitive information.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed...it's not that hard to install a Git server on your own box and use that instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't agree more! 
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but it's still a pretty serious bug in the GitHub extension software.
If I delivered such a bug to my clients, free or not, I might lose my job 
|
|
|
|
|
Then M$ will have a very big rate of employees renoval
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: M$
And it'll be spelled MS from now on
|
|
|
|
|
Why, because of the big runaway of users after Win10?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
but more productive ? I doubt.
