Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

126009RE: [XP] Rose-Colored Code

Expand Messages
  • Steve Ropa
    Mar 6, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      That reminds me of a guy I used to work with. Anytime a major bug would be
      found in a module that he had written, his first response would be "that is
      physically impossible". No matter how many times we would reproduce it that
      would be his response. Once, we found an especially hairy buffer overrun,
      and his immediate response was "somebody must have changed my code."


      From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of William E Caputo
      Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:31 AM
      To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [XP] Rose-Colored Code

      --- In extremeprogramming@ <mailto:extremeprogramming%40yahoogroups.com>
      yahoogroups.com, Michael Feathers
      <mfeathers@...> wrote:

      > Could be.. but the article states that people percieve the owned things
      > as better. Rose colored glasses may inhibit recognition of quality
      > problems too.

      No, that was my point: individual ownership increases the risk from
      this sort of thing. If its my module, its my baby -- I won't see the
      warts. With collective ownership, we can counter each-other's
      emotional subjectivity better than if we each own one little bit of
      the whole.

      IOW: What I took from the article was not the conclusion that
      ownership == attachment == overlook-issues == good
      (which may be true for pet adoption) but rather:
      ownership == attachment == overlook-issues == bad
      (for individual code ownership).

      Make sense?


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 6 messages in this topic