Right Media started using Version One a while back: http://www.versionone.com/ - it's very powerful, and definitely built around the mindset of an dynamic environment.
I wish it could do a better job of managing bugs as well as features/releases/products, and the UI isn't quite there, but all-in-all it's a solid product.
Something I have been looking for is a mapping site that will let me plot a route - say from 42nd and Madison to 14th and 6th - as I would walk it, not as a car would have to drive it (that is, ignore one way streets and such). Generally, because I want to find out how far I have to walk to get to a meeting or something.
Extra credit would be if I could draw a diagonal line through a park (since I can cut through). Or if it estimated walking time the way it done driving time.
There are definitely situations where that works, and I have had good experiences with that. However, I would separate out "pair designing" and "pair debugging" from "pair programming".
When I run into a problem, it's always nice to discuss it with someone. I like that. I don't need to be forced to "pair program" to have these conversations. Similarly I don't need to "pair program" to help other people solve their problems, often interactively. What I don't like about pair programming as a methodology is that it hides incompetent programmers, reduces the learning that comes from failing at a certain approach, and discourages leaps of faith.
That is a good point. I forgot to mention the other important part of this, which is that people switch roles often on the same component. This is my version of turning the dial up to 10. If you think about it, the point of a code review is to make sure that code is clean and legible (and more or less efficient) so that maintenance is easier. What better way to do this than force people to modify each others' code on a regular basis?
Right. Also, I forgot to mention how incredibly important it is to switch between being the tester and being the coder. If you don't do this then it's too easy for both parties to be lazy, and there's no way to check or enforce the quality of code.
At my current job, I've actually outsourced the implementation of the tests (because we're a very small shop) but I'm making the product manager the only interface with the test developers. This keeps me honest, and has the "nice" side effect of making me document all of my interfaces and APIs since the other developer isn't even in the office.
One benefit of doing this with two programmers on-staff, as I prefer, is that when somebody leaves a project, there shouldn't be a huge drop in knowledge. I left a project a few months ago that was done this way and the remaining programmer, who was quite junior, was able to keep on going without much trouble since she had been exposed to both the testing and development aspects of the project.
I would have to say that pair programming isn't really worth it. I personally can't stand the lack of productivity that is inherent to having two programmers sit around and watch each other type.
My version of pair programming is to have one developer write a test harness while the other one develops the actual code to be tested. This forces each of them to communicate with each other, generally via a very informal spec or direct communication with the client.
This ties two people closely together with the immediate need, but it doesn't require complete overlap. I'm not convinced that two brains are better than one - typing is an inherently blocking process, and whiteboarding happens either way.
Anway, what good hacker wants to watch someone else type? Or play a game? Or do anything? Coding isn't a spectator sport.
No leads yet:) I guess I didn't really give anybody a way to respond. What's the best way to do that on/. without getting spammed?
Basically my job is to build this very high performance web application (10K TPS or so), which I'm doing in C/sockets/embedded database/etc.
I need to hire at least one programmer, preferably someone who can either help me enhance and performance tune the application (strong C/sockets/HTTP/multi-threading background) or someone who can help me create a reporting environment that can handle the data generated by the application (probably more on the SQL/OLAP front but in a high-performance way).
I also need a strong Linux admin who can help select, build, and tune a cluster or two of Linux servers. We'll probably start with around 10 boxes and grow to 30-40 in the first year, and we'll need to find a way to manage them intelligently. Also, some networking ability would be great, as we'll have to do some magic with DNS-based load balancing.
Basically, I need to find smart, motivated Linux hackers who want to work in a startup-ish environment (we're 7 people and quite profitable, but growing fast) and can get to New York for an interview.
I have worked with a number of headhunters, and I've had very unpleasant results across the board.
It's something of a vicious cycle in that hiring managers tend to hedge their bets by bringing in multiple headhunters, making it less profitable for the headhunters to do high-quality work for any giving manager. It just doesn't make economic sense for them to really screen candidates and find the perfect fit since neither the candidate nor the hiring manager is locked in.
At one point I tried using a headhunter on a retained basis. We paid him up front for his work on a high-level technical hire, and he put a number of candidates in front of us. He did put a lot of time into the search, and did a better job of screening candidates than any of the contingent (pay if you hire) headhunters. Unfortunately, none of the candidates that we saw fit the bill, and we ended up having paid beaucoup bucks for no results.
I do think, however, that this is the way to go. If you can find a quality headhunter that builds long-term relationships with smart, qualified people, then it's probably worth doing a retained search.
I've been a candidate on both types of search, and the retained is far better from a candidate perspective as well. The hiring manager has already committed significant resources, and has delegated meaningful responsibility to the headhunter - so you can believe 25% of what he/she says, not the usual 10%.
FWIW, I've been trying to hire a couple of Linux-savvy folks for the past month or so, and I've avoided bringing in a headhunter. I can screen resumes as well as the next guy, and probably better than most, and I'll be happy to save the 15-20% fee that they would charge me.
I've only had Vonage for a few days, but I haven't experienced any lag. Today I talked on the phone while listening to streaming radio at 21K/s and it was totally fine. I actually have a cordless phone plugged into the Vonage box, so I can wander the house - much better than having a headset and being tied to my desk.
It's been a while since the iPod came out, and it still seems to be one of the best MP3 players out there. So what's next? Seems like more storage doesn't make a difference at some point (ooh 15,000 songs instead of 10,000).
At the same time, Microsoft has been fairly savvy in protecting its {monopoly|competitive advantage} without really ticking off the media. The Messenger lockdown is pretty blatant, and I haven't seen much public outrage - primarily because the people using Trillian et al are not the mainstream (yet).
The big companies that are locked into their Microsoft investments make choices every 2-5 years when they upgrade their desktops. If Microsoft can create FUD - by claiming incompatibility or building it into new products - then they can hold off OpenOffice for another few years.
I wonder if the EU would see this as anti-competitive (the US won't/can't do anything even if it does).
Slashdot Mirror
I wish it could do a better job of managing bugs as well as features/releases/products, and the UI isn't quite there, but all-in-all it's a solid product.
Something I have been looking for is a mapping site that will let me plot a route - say from 42nd and Madison to 14th and 6th - as I would walk it, not as a car would have to drive it (that is, ignore one way streets and such). Generally, because I want to find out how far I have to walk to get to a meeting or something.
Extra credit would be if I could draw a diagonal line through a park (since I can cut through). Or if it estimated walking time the way it done driving time.
Any ideas?
I can totally see that - makes a lot of sense. I guess my point is that if you're not doing intricate develoment, then it's a waste of time.
There are definitely situations where that works, and I have had good experiences with that. However, I would separate out "pair designing" and "pair debugging" from "pair programming".
When I run into a problem, it's always nice to discuss it with someone. I like that. I don't need to be forced to "pair program" to have these conversations. Similarly I don't need to "pair program" to help other people solve their problems, often interactively. What I don't like about pair programming as a methodology is that it hides incompetent programmers, reduces the learning that comes from failing at a certain approach, and discourages leaps of faith.
That is a good point. I forgot to mention the other important part of this, which is that people switch roles often on the same component. This is my version of turning the dial up to 10. If you think about it, the point of a code review is to make sure that code is clean and legible (and more or less efficient) so that maintenance is easier. What better way to do this than force people to modify each others' code on a regular basis?
Right. Also, I forgot to mention how incredibly important it is to switch between being the tester and being the coder. If you don't do this then it's too easy for both parties to be lazy, and there's no way to check or enforce the quality of code.
At my current job, I've actually outsourced the implementation of the tests (because we're a very small shop) but I'm making the product manager the only interface with the test developers. This keeps me honest, and has the "nice" side effect of making me document all of my interfaces and APIs since the other developer isn't even in the office.
One benefit of doing this with two programmers on-staff, as I prefer, is that when somebody leaves a project, there shouldn't be a huge drop in knowledge. I left a project a few months ago that was done this way and the remaining programmer, who was quite junior, was able to keep on going without much trouble since she had been exposed to both the testing and development aspects of the project.
I would have to say that pair programming isn't really worth it. I personally can't stand the lack of productivity that is inherent to having two programmers sit around and watch each other type.
My version of pair programming is to have one developer write a test harness while the other one develops the actual code to be tested. This forces each of them to communicate with each other, generally via a very informal spec or direct communication with the client.
This ties two people closely together with the immediate need, but it doesn't require complete overlap. I'm not convinced that two brains are better than one - typing is an inherently blocking process, and whiteboarding happens either way.
Anway, what good hacker wants to watch someone else type? Or play a game? Or do anything? Coding isn't a spectator sport.
No leads yet :) I guess I didn't really give anybody a way to respond. What's the best way to do that on /. without getting spammed?
Basically my job is to build this very high performance web application (10K TPS or so), which I'm doing in C/sockets/embedded database/etc.
I need to hire at least one programmer, preferably someone who can either help me enhance and performance tune the application (strong C/sockets/HTTP/multi-threading background) or someone who can help me create a reporting environment that can handle the data generated by the application (probably more on the SQL/OLAP front but in a high-performance way).
I also need a strong Linux admin who can help select, build, and tune a cluster or two of Linux servers. We'll probably start with around 10 boxes and grow to 30-40 in the first year, and we'll need to find a way to manage them intelligently. Also, some networking ability would be great, as we'll have to do some magic with DNS-based load balancing.
Basically, I need to find smart, motivated Linux hackers who want to work in a startup-ish environment (we're 7 people and quite profitable, but growing fast) and can get to New York for an interview.
I have worked with a number of headhunters, and I've had very unpleasant results across the board.
It's something of a vicious cycle in that hiring managers tend to hedge their bets by bringing in multiple headhunters, making it less profitable for the headhunters to do high-quality work for any giving manager. It just doesn't make economic sense for them to really screen candidates and find the perfect fit since neither the candidate nor the hiring manager is locked in.
At one point I tried using a headhunter on a retained basis. We paid him up front for his work on a high-level technical hire, and he put a number of candidates in front of us. He did put a lot of time into the search, and did a better job of screening candidates than any of the contingent (pay if you hire) headhunters. Unfortunately, none of the candidates that we saw fit the bill, and we ended up having paid beaucoup bucks for no results.
I do think, however, that this is the way to go. If you can find a quality headhunter that builds long-term relationships with smart, qualified people, then it's probably worth doing a retained search.
I've been a candidate on both types of search, and the retained is far better from a candidate perspective as well. The hiring manager has already committed significant resources, and has delegated meaningful responsibility to the headhunter - so you can believe 25% of what he/she says, not the usual 10%.
FWIW, I've been trying to hire a couple of Linux-savvy folks for the past month or so, and I've avoided bringing in a headhunter. I can screen resumes as well as the next guy, and probably better than most, and I'll be happy to save the 15-20% fee that they would charge me.
I've only had Vonage for a few days, but I haven't experienced any lag. Today I talked on the phone while listening to streaming radio at 21K/s and it was totally fine. I actually have a cordless phone plugged into the Vonage box, so I can wander the house - much better than having a headset and being tied to my desk.
It's been a while since the iPod came out, and it still seems to be one of the best MP3 players out there. So what's next? Seems like more storage doesn't make a difference at some point (ooh 15,000 songs instead of 10,000).
At the same time, Microsoft has been fairly savvy in protecting its {monopoly|competitive advantage} without really ticking off the media. The Messenger lockdown is pretty blatant, and I haven't seen much public outrage - primarily because the people using Trillian et al are not the mainstream (yet). The big companies that are locked into their Microsoft investments make choices every 2-5 years when they upgrade their desktops. If Microsoft can create FUD - by claiming incompatibility or building it into new products - then they can hold off OpenOffice for another few years. I wonder if the EU would see this as anti-competitive (the US won't/can't do anything even if it does).