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

Re: [XP] XP and .NET popularity

Expand Messages
  • Doug Swartz
    ... I agree. We (whoever I m pairing with, and I) often use two monitors/keyboards for similar purposes. Usually it s the screen real-estate we need more than
    Message 1 of 219 , Jan 1, 2003
      Wednesday, January 01, 2003, 11:15:50 AM, Kathleen Dollard wrote:


      > (*) I question the requirement of one keyboard/box during pair
      > programming in .NET. Even by myself I sometimes have a second box
      > (laptop) going for the help system (and I know .NET very well). It seems
      > that one person being able to look things up without interrupting the
      > flow of the other, and the flow of the application code on screen would
      > be valuable. I see this as being a smooth sequential flow between the
      > two, not two independent parallel tasks. It is just a different thinking
      > process to ask "How can I find?" instead of "How do I do?"

      I agree. We (whoever I'm pairing with, and I) often use two
      monitors/keyboards for similar purposes. Usually it's the screen
      real-estate we need more than the two keyboards/cpus, but sometimes we
      run an acceptance test on the second machine while we continue to
      develop on the first.

      Doug Swartz
      daswartz@...
    • Daniel Sheppard
      ... If the language isn t doing type-checking on you, you wouldn t have had to refactor that test to make it compile. You would have run your tests and see
      Message 219 of 219 , Jan 5, 2003
        > > Well, you had a test that did "new Car(owner)" and asserted
        > that this object
        > > returned what you expected from toString() before you
        > refactored. So you break
        > > your unit test.
        >
        > Yes, that test is in the unit tests for Car. When refactoring
        > Car, I of
        > course changed that one to take an OwnerList, rather than an
        > owner. The
        > problem is with someone who *calls* that method. I'm supposing that I
        > forgot about refactoring DmvImporter as well.

        If the language isn't doing type-checking on you, you wouldn't have had to refactor that test to make it compile.

        You would have run your tests and see that it fails, and your first thought at that point should not be "how do I change the test to make it work?" but "how do I change the code to make it work?". This would have led you to change your toString() method operates correctly regardless of it being an owner or an ownerlist. If you don't have control of all the calling code, or you can't trust yourself to change it all, this is the only solution you should be entertaining.

        Daniel Sheppard

        daniels at pronto.com.au
        #####################################################################################
        This email has been scanned by MailMarshal, an email content filter.
        #####################################################################################
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.