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

Re: What's a another name for...?

Expand Messages
  • shinobu@ieee.org
    Hi, ... Oops... Concrete first, how could I forget? ... I hope at least it solved a drowsy morning problem. :) ... This is nice. I like it. ... I guess it
    Message 1 of 44 , Jul 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      > Well, first of all, examples like these work better if all the variables
      > are given names that make sense to the application, or the immediate usage,
      > not just names that reflect type. The declarations already tell us type:
      > our variable names need to communicate purpose.
      Oops... Concrete first, how could I forget?

      > And in the second example, the phrase "String number" is just about enough
      > to crack my brain as early in the morning as I first read it.
      I hope at least it solved a "drowsy morning" problem. :)

      > I might do
      > something like this:
      >
      > String accountBalanceInput;
      > // set accountBalanceInput somehow;
      > int accountBalance = Integer.parseInt(accountBalanceInput);
      This is nice. I like it.

      > In the second case, I use a language that permits me a better deal, as does
      > Ilja.
      I guess it was only a Java issue...

      > However, if I had to use iterators, I would behave as if they were
      > mostly irrelevant, and would give them trivial names, still giving the
      > other objects application or usage-explaining names, perhaps like this:
      >
      > Collection transactionsOverLimit;
      > Iterator iter = transactionsOverLimit.iterator();
      > while (iter.hasNext()) {
      > Transaction overLimitTrans = (Transaction) iter.next();
      > overLimitTrans.processLimitAction();
      > }
      OK, so there are limits to code readable to non-IT people.
      I'll do some refactoring and make sure that doesn't happen so much.


      Thanks a lot, all!

      --
      Shinobu Kawai <shinobu@...>
    • Victor Goldberg
      I think we are having some miscommunication here. I wasn t talking about the sadness of pair programming. This can be quite rewarding, and a lot of ...
      Message 44 of 44 , Aug 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I think we are having some miscommunication here. I wasn't talking about
        the sadness of pair programming. This can be quite rewarding, and a lot of
        fun. My discussion was triggered by Bib Martin's comment:

        >> .... But expect squalls. I've seen people
        >> quit over this issue. I've also seen them fired. I saw one VP
        completely
        >> disassemble a team because one member completely blocked any progress the
        >> team would otherwise have made.

        I was wandering about the sadness of seeing other people fail in situations
        were they could have succeded, and we were unable to change the outcome,
        because we were not a in a position to make our voices heard.

        Victor



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@...>
        To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:58 AM
        Subject: Re: [XP] New Pair


        > On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 12:28:34 AM, Victor Goldberg wrote:
        >
        > >> Actually they do not leave a scar on my soul.
        >
        > > Here I'll use a metaphor to venture an hypothesis. Did you see the
        movie
        > > The Pianist? It mostly happens in the Jewish Ghetto in Varsovia,
        Poland,
        > > during the Second World War. This is the true story of a Jewish
        pianist, a
        > > very sensitive person. Things keep getting worse and worse. Eventually,
        he
        > > walks in the streets full with dead bodies. He doesn't care anymore.
        He
        > > only thinks about survival. His soul has been so scarred, there is no
        place
        > > for scars anymore. This is what I call denial and alienation, coping
        > > mechanisms.
        >
        > > This was an extreme example, but quite graphic. My hypothesis is that
        this
        > > is in some measure the meaning of what you said above. You lost the
        > > sensitivity for the kind of situation where things go wrong around you,
        in
        > > your case in the working environment. This is your coping mechanism.
        You
        > > may not be aware, but there is some probability this is the case. (of
        > > course, I may be totally wrong, but this is the way I visualize it).
        >
        > Don't quit your day job, the telepathy thing isn't working out. Nothing
        > that happens in pair programming scars my soul. I face the truth of the
        > situation, the things I did well and the things I did poorly. They pass
        > through me, and at the end, I remain, changed, but the same.
        >
        > > In my opinion, there is a value in not loosing touch with my feelings,
        and
        > > keeping fresh my capability to empathize with those that for whatever
        reason
        > > (many times because of their own stupidity or ignorance) find themselves
        in
        > > the hole.
        >
        > Pairing doesn't hurt my feelings because (a) I'm quite confident in my
        > abilities, (b) quite aware of my failings, and (c) quite amused at how
        > frequently they appear together.
        >
        > It does sometimes hurt my feelings when people tell me I'm a jerk for
        > pushing my ideas as hard and as well as I can, but that's off topic at the
        > moment.
        >
        > As for most attacks, they would hurt if they hit me, but they generally do
        > not. It's a skill, perhaps even an art form. Most attacks are about the
        > attacker, not about the target.
        >
        > >> ... What can you tell us about how that comes about?
        >
        > > My coping mechanism has four components:
        > > 1. Accepting that many times I don't have the power to change
        history.
        > > 2. Accepting that it is not my role to live other people's lives.
        > > However, if I can be there to give a hand, I am glad to do that.
        > > 3. Observing what happens around me to try to put lessons learnt to
        good
        > > use when possible.
        > > 4. Allowing for time to grieve, when needed. Sometimes empathy
        results
        > > in a need to grieve for the pain of others.
        >
        > Are we still talking about pair programming here, or are we talking about
        > walking through Dachau? I think the latter would bring me down, but the
        > former generally does not. The four things above seem out of proportion to
        > me to anything that can happen in a pair programming session. What am I
        > missing?
        >
        > > The last one is probably the most overlooked coping mechanism in modern
        > > society. Yet, it's very important. People jump from activity to
        activity
        > > without staying in touch with their own feelings, denying them, and
        suddenly
        > > something gives and their world crumbles, and people don't even know
        what
        > > their problem is.
        >
        > Do "people" really do that? Are we really talking about "people" here?
        Hmm?
        >
        > (Don't worry, I wouldn't quit my day job either, if I had one.)
        >
        > > The point is, not all problems in life have a happy resolution.
        Learning
        > > how to navigate through the highs and lows helps to maximize the highs,
        or
        > > at least minimize the lows. In most cases denial is just an
        unproductive
        > > illusion.
        >
        > Happy is a reaction, not a result.
        >
        > > One thing I find quite sad is the artificial dichotomy between business,
        > > science and engineering on one hand, and emotions on the other. This is
        a
        > > dichotomy fervently promoted by the academic world. Because of this
        > > deficiency in our education, many of us leave school unprepared for the
        > > realities of life, and unable to negotiate productive relationships in
        the
        > > working place (and let's not mention our private lives).
        >
        > Do "many of us" really experience all this? Is there really such a
        > dichotomy? Does the "academic world" really fervently promote anything
        with
        > any notable consistency? To the extent that I may from time to time not
        > have been entirely in touch and integrated with respect to my emotions, it
        > has not occurred to me to blame this on business, science, engineering, or
        > Professor Dansky. I always supposed it was something about me.
        >
        > > As individuals, we
        > > are the unity of all these dimensions. Denying any of these dimensions
        > > reduces both our effectiveness and our quality of life.
        >
        > Yes, I hold this to be quite true.
        >
        > > In this sense there
        > > is an interesting analogy with XP, where the integration of all the
        > > components of design and development at the smallest level of
        granularity
        > > gives the best results.
        >
        > Yes. Now again, about pair programming. You said, talking I thought about
        > pairing, that some kinds of moments made you sad. Tell us, please, about
        > one such moment?
        >
        > Ron Jeffries
        > www.XProgramming.com
        > When all ideas of [XP] is and [XP] is not have been extinguished,
        > then [XP] reality will manifest itself. -- Thich Nhat Hanh [Ron Jeffries]
        >
        >
        > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
        >
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
        >
        > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.