Skip to main content

How To Overcompensate For Something

In the spirit of the old name of this blog, Ranting Techno Rave, this is a rant about a personal experience. This happened in the line of duty, so it is on topic. Has anyone else dealt with this kind of thing? Tell me about it.

This title is purposefully "provoking" and if you're the one I'm talking about, you know who you are. This might even apply to you if you're someone else with the same kind of behavior. Maybe you know or have to work with someone that exhibits the particular personality traits I've had to deal with. In whatever way this applies to you now or in the future, beware as much if you are this type of coder as if you have to deal with one of them.

The lone ranger was a terrible cowboy.

Assertive personalities are important. They point out mistakes, instead of allowing problems through inaction. There is an issue of tact, as a line one needs to watch as they walk the road of the assertive. Code review requires assertion as you tell someone, "You're doing it wrong."

Rather than try to artfully explain and avoid the background of this post, I'm going to just present you with A List of Rules When Joining a Team:
  • Don't insult the code you were hired to work on. Don't insult the coders you were hired to work with. This was actually legacy stuff I was trying to replace, myself, but "What kind of an idiot wrote this?" was a bad enough question when you only thought I wrote it. If I had, I would have removed you immediately (and I should have, anyway)
  • Before you write a single line of code, don't claim you can write all of it yourself.
  • When your new team's lead developer leaves you with a set of bugs before leaving on a pre-scheduled holiday, don't let him return to find the existing code base deleted and a bunch of new stub files checked into a new repository.
  • Respond to email.
  • Actually do your job before taking the money.
  • Last, but not least, please, please, please let me be in the position to yay or nay your application a second time.

Comments

Marius Gedminas said…
Interesting. I don't have quite the same reaction to "What idiot wrote this?", but that's perhaps because I'm part of the team who developed the software in question from scratch, and in most of those cases a quick svn blame showed that the idiot in question was myself. Now that I think of it more, I'd be reluctant to use the phrase when working on someone else's code.

The rest of the points sound pretty damning.

Popular posts from this blog

Respect and Code Reviews

Code Reviews in a development team only function best, or possible at all, when everyone approaches them with respect. That’s something I’ve usually taken for granted because I’ve had the opportunity to work with amazing developers who shine not just in their technical skills but in their interpersonal skills on a team. That isn’t always the case, so I’m going to put into words something that often exists just in assumptions.
You have to respect your code. This is first only because the nature and intent of code reviews are to safeguard the quality of your code, so even having code reviews demonstrates a baseline of respect for that code. But, maybe not everyone on the team has the same level of respect or entered a team with existing review traditions that they aren’t acquainted with.
There can be culture shock when you enter a team that’s really heavy on code reviews, but also if you enter a team or interact with a colleague who doesn’t share that level of respect for the process or…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…

How To Care If BSD, MIT, or GPL Licenses Are Used

The two recent posts about some individuals' choice of GPL versus others' preference for BSD and MIT style licensing has caused a lot of debate and response. I've seen everything as an interesting combination of very important topics being taken far too seriously and far too personally. All involved need to take a few steps back.

For the uninitiated and as a clarifier for the initiated, we're dealing with (basically) three categories of licensing when someone releases software (and/or its code):
Closed Source. Easiest to explain, because you just get nothing.GPL. If you get the software, you get the source code, you get to change it, and anything you combine it with must be under the same terms.MIT and BSD. If you get the software, you might get the source code, you get to change it, and you have no obligations about anything else you combine it with.The situation gets stickier when we look at those combinations and the transitions between them.

Use GPL code with Closed S…