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

Re: [feyerabend-project] May the Source Be With You

Expand Messages
  • David Cymbala
    Josh (and Brian too, I guess)- You might want to take a look at Lion s commentary on the Unix version 6 code. It is a tour de force of many aspects of a real
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Josh (and Brian too, I guess)-

      You might want to take a look at Lion's
      commentary on the Unix version 6 code.
      It is a tour de force of many aspects of
      a "real" operating system, as well as a
      review of the particulars of a very early
      version of C and its strengths and weaknesses.
      A good read, but not for the timid.

      But on the whole, it would appear that
      most code reviews happen in more
      intimate settings (such as CodingInPairs)
      rather than in a setting where more people
      can criticize the overall concept, design
      and implementation.

      I've done code review on the job, but usually
      only after the person who wrote the code is
      gone and unable to answer for it. I have certainly
      learned a lot about what *not* to do by that
      method. I even have "coding standards" for
      C++, Java, and HTML, but it seems hard to
      get developers to understand the reasons for
      the standards, and to have them take "standards"
      very seriously at all.

      What I find odd is that even though OO languages
      are supposedly easier to "review", programmers
      are still rather sensitive to criticism in general.
      Perhaps it's because they are given such abysmal
      specs and work under such ridiculous expectations
      that high-quality work the first time around on a project
      is so rare. Perhaps that is why good design is often
      the result of good hindsight.

      Does this also extend to Open Source projects?
      I have seen many comments in the code of open
      source projects that clearly show the author has
      a tounge-in-cheek attitude about much of the project,
      and might not mind a code review, but might not
      act on it much either. I'd like to see a work environment
      where code review was more of an ordinary fact of
      development in general, but it seems that usually
      neither managers nor developers get much time to
      justify it on the job.

      Perhaps a class such as the one you are suggesting
      would apply better to senior developers who are taking
      on a more managerial role rather than novice developers.
      On the other hand, such general skills could be helpful
      in speeding up the learning process of novices so they
      become senior more quickly. :-)

      -David

      At 04:57 PM 2/8/02 -0600, Brian Marick wrote:
      At 10:59 AM 1/10/02, Gross Joshua wrote:
      >That having been said, massive amounts of code (some
      >of it even good code) are available open-source, and
      >yet I have never heard of, let alone taken, a course
      >that reviewed code, even code produced for the class.
      >In textual analysis, we have the technique of
      >exegesis. Perhaps we are wholely lacking an exegetic
      >technique in software.
      >
      >This is certainly true in practice; I've never seen a
      >code review where any "close reading" was performed.

      Someday, I would like to teach a course on applying techniques of literary
      criticism to code. (The University of Illinois once let me teach a course
      called "CS397BEM: Being Wrong". In those days, they'd apparently let you
      teach anything, so long as they didn't have to pay you. The course was a
      worthwhile idea, mind you: my goal was to show programmers, via examples
      from many fields, how often solutions to problems bring with them new
      problems. To make them expect generated problems, not be shocked by them.)

      The lit crit course would use a simple text of modern criticism, such as
      Tyson's _Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide" (wretched title) or
      Barry's _Beginning Theory_. Some techniques - reader-response criticism,
      deconstruction, maybe the new historicism - seem fairly readily applicable.
      Queer theory, I dunno.

      Given the right five people, it could be a blast. Maybe more of an exercise
      in creativity than anything else, but that's OK.

      If anyone else does things like that, please let me know.

      --
      Brian Marick, marick@...
      www.testing.com - Software testing services and resources
      www.testingcraft.com - Where software testers exchange techniques
      www.visibleworkings.com - Adequate understanding of system internals
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.