So yes, you do know who reviewed what, and whether or not they give their seal of approval.
now I'll admit that someone can just mark a review as fine without having read it, but as I said, nothing is perfect. Our process could certainly be improved more if we used a Github-style way of managing code (pull requests and all that) but since we use SVN and do all our work on the master branch it won't happen. I've fought for it but was the counter argument was that the team is not large enough to justify that kind of workflow. *shrug*
The last two jobs I've done had a review process where all commits to the RCS resulted in a notification sent to the entire team, and was expected to be reviewed by two or more people.
One nice thing about this approach as well, better architecture. Not because of someone's review, but because the review process works far better when commits are small. Keeping commits small helped to improve modularity of our code, since 98% of the time we expect each commit to result in software that can be built (we did everything in our powers to avoid committing changes that would break a build).
A proper peer review process is far superior. Review your plan with your teammates. If you're working with components that others work on, make sure they are part of the plan review. Once all questions are answered, put your headphones on and go forth and code. Rely on unit tests to catch the obvious problems, rely on integration tests to catch less than obvious problems, rely on QA to catch what your integration tests miss. Use linting, static code analysis, and other tools like Sonarqube to identify potential problems within your code that may not manifest themselves under day to day usage. Voila...
Is it perfect? Of course not. Will your software be 100% bug free? Of course not. It also doesn't solve problems related to lack of intelligence or experience amongst your teammates, and it doesn't solve problems related to lack of foresight from management who impose impossible deadlines or who close deals with customers that include features which don't exist. But the team will still be more productive than if they had to share computers and work in pairs. Programmers need focus and pair programming will ruin any focus you could have.
> But lets get away from games and onto serious computing.
And games are not serious computing how? There are grand challenges that have been overcome in the technologies that power video games. Path finding, latency reduction, 3D computation, and so on.
Not to mention budgets that exceed that of some "enterprise" firms.
Every commit I make at work is required to have at least one peer review and its' recommended to have two and we are not selling security-related software.
I've never heard of this company, but this revelation speaks volumes to their poor development strategy. Maybe they fell in love with buzzwords like Agile or Waterfall or whatever without realizing that proper processes like peer reviews have nothing to do with these buzzwords. Either way, they can not be trusted for letting this happen. Either they do not review their own code on a regular basis, or parts of management are corrupt for letting this happen. Either way, probably time to stop doing business with them.
to be fair, this whole mess could actually be partly responsible on climate change.
Syria has been experiencing a severe drought, which has lead to unemployment in the agricultural industry. The mass unemployment was one of catalysts of the civil war.
> and many of these users expect modern conveniences like intuitive UI and documented processes
Which doesn't necessarily imply that the customers "hate the product because of UI". Have you considered that maybe the customers priorities are not the UI, even though it's near the top of the "nice to have" list?
OP then says
> However, convincing the development teams that undertaking projects to clean up the UI or build more self-explanatory features are often met with, "It's too big an undertaking," or, "it's not worth it."
So an entirely plausible scenario is that the customer NEEDS feature X, and WANTS nicer UI, devs say UI work will take extensive time because blah blah blah and it'll delay feature X, customer says "eh.... well feature X is more important, here are my tens of thousands of dollars of maintenance dues".
The devs will work on whatever the management deems a priority, and management will deem revenue streams a priority, regardless of what anyone wants.
I've never played minecraft but I'm a huge fan of garrys mod and space engineers. I'd use this, but only for my small home network. Its impractical but fun, which is perfect for hobby grade stuff.
I.can't imagine myself using it in any professional capacity and I can't see how it would be easier than what we have now.
> Which does not mean we have to like them or even mean we have to or should tolerate them but if we want to act 'rationally' and possibly self interested
"we" as in the politicians, will need the political capital to act, capital that comes from "we', the people.
So painting the actions of someone who threatens us as "irrational" is a good way to gain that capital.
> versus an elitist who thinks that the people are not capable of making the right decisions. The latter is the "nanny government" mentality, which is what we're dealing with here.
In most modern democracies, the people elect a leader on their behalf to make decisions that the people are not capable of making on their own. This is not elitism, this is just common sense. Especially in countries like the US where the education system a mediocre mess.
Honestly, do you think a country as big, powerful, and comparatively unintelligent as the US, should have a referendum on every decision made by government?
Many transit lines are fully autonomous. Vancouver's SkyTrain and Montreal's metro both run on autopilot. Montreal does have one person occupying the cab though, but that person's job is exactly what TFA is talking about. Should anything go wrong, that person can take manual control of the train. Slam on the breaks if someone is on the tracks. Hold the doors open a few seconds longer if they notice someone who is just a few seconds late, coordinate evacuation if needed, and so on.
> the electorate are going to punish anyone who brings the government down and brings on another round of elections
Considering that only 1/3rd of Canadians want Harper, I'm not sure there would be "punishment". Also, I suspect that our current Governor General will not be so feeble and kowtow to Harper's prorogue or dissolution requests if the NDP and Liberals go the coalition route.
And despite Harper having scared Canadians the last time a coalition was tried, I think the desperation of so many Canadians to see Harper go will force them to settle all their centrist vs left wing differences and be much more open minded to an NDP/Lib coalition. At least... I hope. Our system would work far better if we can accept coalition governments. Heck, if we were really open to coalition governments, maybe we would still have the Reform party.
so then the problem is that people who need help live in a country that steadfastly refuses to provide it, despite having more than enough resources to do so.
Anti gun lobbyists will say this is because of guns.
Pro gun lobbyists will say this is because there weren't enough guns
The rest of the world will look at America and wonder "what social/economic/cultural problem exists where there can be a few mass shootings a year?"
Everyone will argue for a month or so. John Oliver might say something about it. But after a month, everyone will forget this has happened. Then, several months later, there will be another mass shooting in the US and the cycle repeats itself.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a discussion forum. Questions are typically a good mechanism for starting a discussion. Perhaps this is not a good place for you.
well, at Job 1 it was hit or miss, but at Job 2 we have a formal code review tool: https://www.reviewboard.org/
So yes, you do know who reviewed what, and whether or not they give their seal of approval.
now I'll admit that someone can just mark a review as fine without having read it, but as I said, nothing is perfect. Our process could certainly be improved more if we used a Github-style way of managing code (pull requests and all that) but since we use SVN and do all our work on the master branch it won't happen. I've fought for it but was the counter argument was that the team is not large enough to justify that kind of workflow. *shrug*
> No, a review process is useless.
then
> You need actual code reviews for it to work,
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
The last two jobs I've done had a review process where all commits to the RCS resulted in a notification sent to the entire team, and was expected to be reviewed by two or more people.
One nice thing about this approach as well, better architecture. Not because of someone's review, but because the review process works far better when commits are small. Keeping commits small helped to improve modularity of our code, since 98% of the time we expect each commit to result in software that can be built (we did everything in our powers to avoid committing changes that would break a build).
A proper peer review process is far superior. Review your plan with your teammates. If you're working with components that others work on, make sure they are part of the plan review. Once all questions are answered, put your headphones on and go forth and code. Rely on unit tests to catch the obvious problems, rely on integration tests to catch less than obvious problems, rely on QA to catch what your integration tests miss. Use linting, static code analysis, and other tools like Sonarqube to identify potential problems within your code that may not manifest themselves under day to day usage. Voila...
Is it perfect? Of course not. Will your software be 100% bug free? Of course not. It also doesn't solve problems related to lack of intelligence or experience amongst your teammates, and it doesn't solve problems related to lack of foresight from management who impose impossible deadlines or who close deals with customers that include features which don't exist. But the team will still be more productive than if they had to share computers and work in pairs. Programmers need focus and pair programming will ruin any focus you could have.
> But lets get away from games and onto serious computing.
And games are not serious computing how? There are grand challenges that have been overcome in the technologies that power video games. Path finding, latency reduction, 3D computation, and so on.
Not to mention budgets that exceed that of some "enterprise" firms.
goes through branches before making it to trunk
Every commit I make at work is required to have at least one peer review and its' recommended to have two and we are not selling security-related software.
I've never heard of this company, but this revelation speaks volumes to their poor development strategy. Maybe they fell in love with buzzwords like Agile or Waterfall or whatever without realizing that proper processes like peer reviews have nothing to do with these buzzwords. Either way, they can not be trusted for letting this happen. Either they do not review their own code on a regular basis, or parts of management are corrupt for letting this happen. Either way, probably time to stop doing business with them.
Cross platform and free are two things postgresql offers that sql server doesn't
to be fair, this whole mess could actually be partly responsible on climate change.
Syria has been experiencing a severe drought, which has lead to unemployment in the agricultural industry. The mass unemployment was one of catalysts of the civil war.
People keep blaming Netflix for decisions enforced upon them by production studios.
Bet you didn't consider that NASA
doesn't keto also mean no alcohol?
so?
Greed is inevitable, what's wrong with working with it instead of against it?
it's also a wide open invitation for someone more imaginative than I to point out how it could be practical. This is a message forum after all ;)
all that was said was
> and many of these users expect modern conveniences like intuitive UI and documented processes
Which doesn't necessarily imply that the customers "hate the product because of UI". Have you considered that maybe the customers priorities are not the UI, even though it's near the top of the "nice to have" list?
OP then says
> However, convincing the development teams that undertaking projects to clean up the UI or build more self-explanatory features are often met with, "It's too big an undertaking," or, "it's not worth it."
So an entirely plausible scenario is that the customer NEEDS feature X, and WANTS nicer UI, devs say UI work will take extensive time because blah blah blah and it'll delay feature X, customer says "eh.... well feature X is more important, here are my tens of thousands of dollars of maintenance dues".
The devs will work on whatever the management deems a priority, and management will deem revenue streams a priority, regardless of what anyone wants.
I've never played minecraft but I'm a huge fan of garrys mod and space engineers. I'd use this, but only for my small home network. Its impractical but fun, which is perfect for hobby grade stuff.
I.can't imagine myself using it in any professional capacity and I can't see how it would be easier than what we have now.
on "the darknet"?
What is the "darknet"? tor sites? freenet sites? or is darknet an actual service/thing?
invoking Betteridge's Law makes no sense on a discussion forum, stop doing it.
> Which does not mean we have to like them or even mean we have to or should tolerate them but if we want to act 'rationally' and possibly self interested
"we" as in the politicians, will need the political capital to act, capital that comes from "we', the people.
So painting the actions of someone who threatens us as "irrational" is a good way to gain that capital.
> versus an elitist who thinks that the people are not capable of making the right decisions. The latter is the "nanny government" mentality, which is what we're dealing with here.
In most modern democracies, the people elect a leader on their behalf to make decisions that the people are not capable of making on their own. This is not elitism, this is just common sense. Especially in countries like the US where the education system a mediocre mess.
Honestly, do you think a country as big, powerful, and comparatively unintelligent as the US, should have a referendum on every decision made by government?
She did far more for computer science than Ada Lovelace, and she did far more at defying social gender norms than Ada Lovelace.
If anyone should be celebrated for breaking social barriers AND important contributions at the same time, it should be her, not Lovelace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Many transit lines are fully autonomous. Vancouver's SkyTrain and Montreal's metro both run on autopilot. Montreal does have one person occupying the cab though, but that person's job is exactly what TFA is talking about. Should anything go wrong, that person can take manual control of the train. Slam on the breaks if someone is on the tracks. Hold the doors open a few seconds longer if they notice someone who is just a few seconds late, coordinate evacuation if needed, and so on.
> the electorate are going to punish anyone who brings the government down and brings on another round of elections
Considering that only 1/3rd of Canadians want Harper, I'm not sure there would be "punishment". Also, I suspect that our current Governor General will not be so feeble and kowtow to Harper's prorogue or dissolution requests if the NDP and Liberals go the coalition route.
And despite Harper having scared Canadians the last time a coalition was tried, I think the desperation of so many Canadians to see Harper go will force them to settle all their centrist vs left wing differences and be much more open minded to an NDP/Lib coalition. At least... I hope. Our system would work far better if we can accept coalition governments. Heck, if we were really open to coalition governments, maybe we would still have the Reform party.
so then the problem is that people who need help live in a country that steadfastly refuses to provide it, despite having more than enough resources to do so.
Anti gun lobbyists will say this is because of guns.
Pro gun lobbyists will say this is because there weren't enough guns
The rest of the world will look at America and wonder "what social/economic/cultural problem exists where there can be a few mass shootings a year?"
Everyone will argue for a month or so. John Oliver might say something about it. But after a month, everyone will forget this has happened. Then, several months later, there will be another mass shooting in the US and the cycle repeats itself.