1

Topic: Control of the strong signor

The strong programmer (signor) comes to the project. More strongly  on knowledge. The heads  do not change. What correct behavior  in respect of operation control? Often code the signor is not clear and it seems difficult. A question: as though you conducted yourselves in a role ?

2

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S> What correct behavior  in respect of operation control? S> often code the signor is not clear and it seems difficult. S> a question: as though you conducted yourselves in a role ? And it is not clear because it uses such technologies which anybody another does not know or he simply writes so ? Normally than better the programmer, he is capable to write especially clear code

3

Re: Control of the strong signor

S> it is normal than better the programmer, he is capable to write especially clear code Optionally, level of the abstract thinking can be above. For example, he writes all on templates.

4

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, Qt-Coder, you wrote: S>> it is normal than better the programmer, he is capable to write especially clear code QC> Optionally, level of the abstract thinking can be above. For example, he writes all on templates. It just the first case, uses technologies which others do not know. In that case all should study templates (and it should prove with deep arguments that with them is better/faster/is more qualitative)

5

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, Sshur, you wrote: S> It just the first case, uses technologies which others do not know. In that case all should study templates (and it should prove with deep arguments, what with them is better/faster/is more qualitative) From what it it should someone prove something? If there is a job to write on With ++ it on it and writes.

6

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, Qt-Coder, you wrote: QC> it is optional, level of the abstract thinking can be above. For example, he writes all on templates. Or the bicycles invents. Though strongly different hardly it turns out to make.

7

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S> the Heads  do not change. And what for it to change? It seems to me it to be not is mandatory the cleverest everywhere. S> What correct behavior  in respect of operation control? What is "correct"? Correctness can be different from the point of view of business, success of the project as a whole, operation savings, etc. S> Often code the signor is not clear and it seems difficult. S> a question: as though you conducted yourselves in a role ? Would ask to explain and a little  a command under new approaches. Because in the future this code should be supported to other members of team. Plus the probability is high that this strong signor sometime leaves.

8

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, Qt-Coder, you wrote: QC> Hello, Sshur, you wrote: S>> It just the first case, uses technologies which others do not know. In that case all should study templates (and it should prove with deep arguments, what with them is better/faster/is more qualitative) QC> From what it it should someone prove something? If there is a job to write on With ++ it on it and writes. Well if you write more difficult, than it is possible to write, there should be a reason, instead of is simple "let's use all possibilities of language, it is possible". For example, premature optimization and  design. But this all purely speculative reasonings, it is necessary to look specific cases.

9

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, msorc, you wrote: M> Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S>> the Heads  do not change. M> and what for it to change? It seems to me it to be not is mandatory the cleverest everywhere. There is a question why the signor not ? S>> What correct behavior  in respect of operation control? M> that such "correct"? Correctness can be different from the point of view of business, success of the project as a whole, operation savings, etc. correctness in respect of saving of the status and success of project S>> Often code the signor is not clear and it seems difficult. S>> a question: as though you conducted yourselves in a role ? M> would Ask to explain and a little  a command under new approaches. Because in the future this code should be supported to other members of team. Plus the probability is high that this strong signor sometime leaves. The project in itself does not demand difficult things. Tests too are not present. People do not know about monads (I for example) and it it is difficult.

10

Re: Control of the strong signor

S> Often code the signor is not clear and it seems difficult. S> a question: as though you conducted yourselves in a role ? Each time would ask to explain that the code does, and would leave if only understood completely

11

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: M>> would Ask to explain and a little  a command under new approaches. Because in the future this code should be supported to other members of team. Plus the probability is high that this strong signor sometime leaves. S> the project in itself does not demand difficult things. Tests too are not present. S> people do not know about monads (I for example) and it it is difficult. ., it puts the functional approach everywhere? Well also there is such concept. As Bus Factor. It is necessary to provide, that it was more than 1.

12

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S> What correct behavior  in respect of operation control? S> often code the signor is not clear and it seems difficult. S> a question: as though you conducted yourselves in a role ? I would not began to be measured by rulers, in public would recognize it  and would try to supervise result of operation, instead of a manner of a spelling of the code. Then, would connect somebody in pair to  that it was not the unique carrier of knowledge. Explaining it is minimization of the general and its risks. Easy to go on leave for 2-3-4 weeks - too counts for something. Well and, as already truly noticed, it is excellent occasion to tighten command overall level.

13

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S> there is a question why the signor not ? Data domain understands is worse.

14

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S> there is a question why the signor not ? As already answered can understand data domain is worse. Can fulfill is worse supervising functions or not to want to be engaged in it. M>> would ask to explain and a little  a command under new approaches. Because in the future this code should be supported to other members of team. Plus the probability is high that this strong signor sometime leaves. S> the project in itself does not demand difficult things. Tests too are not present. S> people do not know about monads (I for example) and it it is difficult. Would ask it to share knowledge before a command and me about these monads, advantages such . And time came such clever person it is possible also to start to write tests Here just in my opinion a lead and should prove, smooth somehow roughnesses in skills. If the signor is manufactured and does not want to share knowledge, to explain or write easier it is a problem. Then the code will be heavy for supporting, as it will be unique who something understands. In general the test for responsibility of the signor and ability of a lead to adjust command operation. If business is absolutely bad, can even be better to remove the signor from the project.

15

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, msorc, you wrote: M> If business is absolutely bad, can even be better to remove the signor from the project. overcvalificated

16

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, Qt-Coder, you wrote: M>> If business is absolutely bad, can even be better to remove the signor from the project. QC> overcvalificated overassholed

17

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S> the strong programmer (the signor) Comes to the project. S> is stronger  on knowledge. S> the heads  do not change. S> what correct behavior  in respect of operation control? S> often code the signor is not clear and it seems difficult. S> a question: as though you conducted yourselves in a role ?  or the architect? To distribute  and to supervise their performance of special technical knowledge does not demand. The code not clear or difficult - to ask questions, it is not becomes clear yet or while the code will not be rewritten on more clear variant.  the code at you is? If the architect not to hinder it to show the initiative. The only thing, it is necessary to track, that any shown initiative has been supported or at least understood at least by half of command. There is a special case: when  - the rested stupid ram. But in this case the problem too is not present -  soon leaves.

18

Re: Control of the strong signor

Saw such situation from outside. The person came, wrote the code on With ++ on  and other templates. Then it was very difficult to support this code. Eventually employed other abrupt dude, that like understood, added, but then too left (in Google) and again the same problem rose. The company was not so big both technological and to abrupt dudes is visible in it it was boring, well and I assume that paid in it strongly above the market. Other programmers there wrote too on With ++, but on "simple", Si with classes, as they say, at them problems with the code were not. I cannot doubt qualification of "abrupt" programmers, they really abrupt, but nevertheless the situation turned out such. Though I was not in that project so, from outside heard, probably special problems and was not, but floor-mats were in general mine , it is necessary or to pay to such people is strong above the market and to be ready to find it not less abrupt changeover or to be ready to that the code appears  or to force them to write on any  "for fools" (but then it it will be boring also they can leave ahead of time).

19

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: s> S>> the Heads  do not change. s> M> and what for it to change? It seems to me it to be not is mandatory the cleverest everywhere. s> there is a question why the signor not ? In my opinion - the seigneur and  are different things. The first developer, the second commander. At the first it can be simple not necessary administrative skills. avalon/2.0.3

20

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, Qt-Coder, you wrote: QC> Hello, Sshur, you wrote: S>> It just the first case, uses technologies which others do not know. In that case all should study templates (and it should prove with deep arguments, what with them is better/faster/is more qualitative) QC> From what it it should someone prove something? If there is a job to write on With ++ it on it and writes. Because with its code it is necessary to work not only to it. And if level in a command low, it is necessary to consider it. Not to use templates generally it it is finite behind an edge but what-thread    with  (there was at me such colleague) should be justified analog also truth.

21

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, Qt-Coder, you wrote: QC> Hello, Sshur, you wrote: S>> It just the first case, uses technologies which others do not know. In that case all should study templates (and it should prove with deep arguments, what with them is better/faster/is more qualitative) QC> From what it it should someone prove something? If there is a job to write on With ++ it on it and writes. Code review for signors cancelled? If anybody in a command cannot  its code, someone in this triple explicitly superfluous (such code, such seigneur or such command)

22

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S> What correct behavior  in respect of operation control? S> often code the signor is not clear and it seems difficult. C language ++ is fine that there is no limit of complexity and incomprehensibility of the code which it is possible to write on it. The companies of type of Google solve this problem that write code style guide, explicitly forbidding excessive recomplication of the code. And I suppose, spending a few time, such  it is possible in ready type to find, besides for all tastes. S> a question: as though you conducted yourselves in a role ? Would learn to delegate responsibility.

23

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S> the Question: as though you conducted yourselves in a role ? Would esteem that I there wrote in coding guidelines pair tens years ago. If it is told - templates are forbidden, would consider with the seigneur, whether deigns to write dear gin so that all it was clear, or to explain to a command of advantage of the new approach, and then all the same to write couple of months so that all it was clear. But at me pay for a product, instead of for the code, therefore always there is an argument "yes, you very clever, but at us here collective development and deadlines".

24

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, Qt-Coder, you wrote: QC> From what it should someone prove it something? If there is a job to write on With ++ it on it and writes. Value of result is defined not by level of technologies and not algorithms, and support cost. Programmers, and, as it is known, programmers support the code communicate with each other through the code. If the programmer is not capable to it it is the bad programmer, without dependence from that, how much well he knows technologies and algorithms. The reason is simple: if tomorrow such "genius"  the bus business costs on learning of the code or its changeover can be excessively great. Therefore yes, it is necessary to explain, prove and train.

25

Re: Control of the strong signor

Hello, snaphold, you wrote: S> What correct behavior  in respect of operation control? To give to the dude all conditions, but to ask questions while both you and it it is not becomes clearly crystal that it does. S> often code the signor is not clear and it seems difficult. To force to make comments, enter coding standards. Including not to hesitate to register point that bitten  go on... In Google.