Home > Archive > Cobol > June 2004 > Re: Sorts (revised)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Sorts (revised)
|
|
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-25, 9:21 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40db5029.24838542@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>I see... and how did you arrive at this rather precise statistic?
I looked at lines of code per day. Industry average is 10-15; my people scored
30-50. I applied a 'one-tailed p' of 20 to determine anything over 35 was in the
top 10%.
That speaks to quantity. Quality is subjective. In my Humble Opinion, their code
was beautifully crafted.
>Logic is a game played by a particular series of rules, Mr Wagner... but
>my apologies for the obscurity. When I used 'De Rerum Natura' I was
>referring not to Lucretius' work but to the concept it embodies, that of
>'The Nature of Things' (the usual (mis-)translation) or 'The Way Things
>Are'; my sentence should have been read as:
The following passage was deleted. Using 'The Way Things Are' as a working
interpretation, you argue for the status quo, which is piss poor Cobol.
>
>I do not recall making such an assertion, Mr Wagner, and I believe that
>you are unable to produce words which I have written which state this. I
>am not responsible for your interpretation of my postings.
I intepreted 'The Way Things Are' as a defense of the status quo.
>Mr Wagner, one who would 'accept much' would not, in my experience, try to
>bait an audience by calling what they do 'a travesty'... you've railed
>against 'monolithic programs', GO TO -EXIT structures and a lack of object
>orientation in COBOL, all three of which are, at least in my experience,
>in 'most of the code' I've been asked to work on.
Thank you for confirming my complaints.
If you want more than one-line responses, post something more thoughtful than
attacks on my personality.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-25, 10:05 pm |
| In article <40dcbbeb.35150863@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>I looked at lines of code per day.
No more needs be said, Mr Wagner; I am sure several of the readers of this
newsgroup are aware of the value of this metric.
[snip]
>That speaks to quantity. Quality is subjective. In my Humble Opinion, their code
>was beautifully crafted.
My Drill Sergeant taught something about opinions, Mr Wagner; what you are
saying here seems to be the equivalent of 'They produced great, steaming
mounds of stuff and I loved the smell.'
>
>
>The following passage was deleted.
My error and apology, Mr Wagner; my intention was to post:
--begin correction
Your experience should be broad enough by now to have seen enough cranked
code so that you might conclude how The Way Things Are could be compared
to how you like to think... or are you postulating two different groups,
one which puts together most of the code out there and 'we code crankers',
some kind of... elite?
--end correction
>Using 'The Way Things Are' as a working
>interpretation, you argue for the status quo, which is piss poor Cobol.
Using 'The Way Things Are' in the passsage above, Mr Wagner, I make no
argument of that kind whatsover; I question what it is that you have seen
and you you classify yourself in regards to it.
If most of the work you have seen is superior to the kind of work produced
by the 'we code crankers' group in which you classify yourself then your
work is worse than most of what you have seen.
If most of the work you have seen is equal to the kind of work produced by
'we code crankers' then... it is equal.
If most of the work you have seen is inferior to the work produced by the
'we code crankers' then you seem to be labelling your group as producing
the 'best of class' work... and that, by definition, is elitism.
>
>
>I intepreted 'The Way Things Are' as a defense of the status quo.
Then, Mr Wagner, by my assertions and demonstrations as author (and thus
arbiter of intention of use) you have been proven wrong.
>
>
>Thank you for confirming my complaints.
Mr Wagner, as shown above you've misinterpreted my intentions before...
were you to be able to disabuse yourself of that habit you might find that
something else, entire, has just been confirmed.
>
>If you want more than one-line responses, post something more thoughtful than
>attacks on my personality.
Thanks for the warning, Mr Wagner; if I am ever tempted to post an attack
on your personality I shall endeavor, wholeheartedly, to give it all the
heed which it oh-so-obviously deserves.
DD
| |
| Richard 2004-06-26, 8:55 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
[color=darkred]
> That speaks to quantity. Quality is subjective. In my Humble Opinion, their
> code was beautifully crafted.
> The following passage was deleted. Using 'The Way Things Are' as a working
> interpretation, you argue for the status quo, which is piss poor Cobol.
I have noticed a common theme. It seems that everything that you have
been involved with is the 'best', is beautiful, is skilled, while
everything that you have never even seen is 'piss poor', mediocre and
'a travesty'.
> If you want more than one-line responses, post something more thoughtful than
> attacks on my personality.
He is not 'attacking your personality', but is commenting on your
observable _behaviour_. You _did_ call what mainframers did as 'a
travesty' and did admit to calling them mediocre and to baiting them,
even when you have never seen any of their actual code.
This _may_ be a result of your personality, or may be because of a
lack of it, I could not judge that, I can only judge what I see in the
words.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-26, 8:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40dcbbeb.35150863@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
10%[color=darkred]
>
>No more needs be said, Mr Wagner; I am sure several of the readers of this
>newsgroup are aware of the value of this metric.
They don't offer an alternative objective metric. I agree that line count is
fallible, but it's better than nothing.
Generally, fast programmers are also better programmers. So measures of volume
are an indirect measure of quality.
>
>My error and apology, Mr Wagner; my intention was to post:
>
>--begin correction
>
>Your experience should be broad enough by now to have seen enough cranked
>code so that you might conclude how The Way Things Are could be compared
>to how you like to think... or are you postulating two different groups,
>one which puts together most of the code out there and 'we code crankers',
>some kind of... elite?
>
>--end correction
I meant 'we code crankers' to be a loose fraternity of programmers who sludge
through the 'data mines', producing code of varying beauty. Those who take pride
in their work and those who have turned cynical.
Some programs run like a well-oiled machine; others run like an empty footlocker
falling down a flight of stairs.
>If most of the work you have seen is superior to the kind of work produced
>by the 'we code crankers' group in which you classify yourself then your
>work is worse than most of what you have seen.
What? You're trying to construct a syllogism, but it makes no logical sense.
Most code crankers write crap code because they don't think beauty matters. They
care only about their paycheck and the boss' approval. I encourage them to do it
right, not because they'll be rewarded with money or approbation, rather because
it's right.
>
>Mr Wagner, as shown above you've misinterpreted my intentions before...
>were you to be able to disabuse yourself of that habit you might find that
>something else, entire, has just been confirmed.
Don't hold back. Just write what you're trying to communicate.
>
>Thanks for the warning, Mr Wagner; if I am ever tempted to post an attack
>on your personality I shall endeavor, wholeheartedly, to give it all the
>heed which it oh-so-obviously deserves.
You'll have to establish bona fides before readers give credibility to your
opinions. Oblique references to philosophers and classical languages doesn't cut
it .. at least not in the US, perhaps in England. Your keyboard hasn't
demonstrated you know more about Cobol than most of us, and much less than
Mssrs. Klein, Stevens and Pilston.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-26, 8:55 pm |
| riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
>
>
>
>
>I have noticed a common theme. It seems that everything that you have
>been involved with is the 'best', is beautiful, is skilled, while
>everything that you have never even seen is 'piss poor', mediocre and
>'a travesty'.
I encourage programmers to strive for beauty.
>
>He is not 'attacking your personality', but is commenting on your
>observable _behaviour_. You _did_ call what mainframers did as 'a
>travesty' and did admit to calling them mediocre and to baiting them,
>even when you have never seen any of their actual code.
I've seen millions of lines of their actual code. I've rewritten thousands of
their programs, in some cases every program in the shop.
The first thing I do is to modularize IO, one program per file. You talked about
doing the same. This allows redesign of file structure, or moving it to a
database, without recompiling or testing application code. When doing that, I
usually regression test one or two systems.
The result was modular code that was much easier to maintain and, more
importantly, make changes with confidence they'd work right the first time.
For instance, I worked at a medium-sized supermarket company in Texas that had
200 stores and 2 warehouses. Supermarket industry norms said we should be
spending .5% of sales on IT. The company's sales varied between $1B and $2B (the
higher number after a major acquisition), so we should have been spending
between $5M and $10M. That translates to about 50 programmers and analysts.
Several competitors I knew details about, such as HEB in San Antonio, did indeed
spend that much and have that many programmers. We spent $1M per year on total
IT (hardware, software, paper and programmers) and did it with 6
programmer/analysts. The difference was $4-9M hard cash to the bottom line.
After I left, the IT budget went from $1M, where it had been for 7 years, to
$7M, within the industry norm. Performance actually decreased and programmers
said it was no longer a fun place to work.
Anticipating rebuttal, you'll say my methodology was tied to a 'cult of
personality' rather than a universal solution. Not so.. After I left, they
discarded my systems and replaced them with a canned ERP solution.
>This _may_ be a result of your personality, or may be because of a
>lack of it, I could not judge that, I can only judge what I see in the
>words.
I've never had trouble getting along with a good programmer, except here. My
enemies, except here, have been mediocre and bad programmers, who fealt
threatened.
When I was manager, the problem solved itself because the bad ones quit before I
fired them. In two cases, they tried to make me look bad by hacking into my
programs from outside and sabotaging them. In both cases I was able to capture
an image of their 'tool' and disassemble it. When confronted with tangible and
irrefutable evidence, they quit.
Why is my reception in CLC discrepant with it in the real world? I didn't live
in a niche or sheltered environment. I worked with people from divers
backgrounds ranging from CS academics to self-taught g s with low social
skills. The answer must be in the dynamics of electronic communication vs.
face-to-face.
Robert
| |
| JerryMouse 2004-06-26, 8:55 pm |
| Robert Wagner wrote:
>
> Why is my reception in CLC discrepant with it in the real world? I
> didn't live in a niche or sheltered environment. I worked with people
> from divers backgrounds ranging from CS academics to self-taught
> gs with low social skills. The answer must be in the dynamics of
> electronic communication vs. face-to-face.
Everybody wait while I fix the popcorn...
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-26, 8:55 pm |
| "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:
>Robert Wagner wrote:
>
>Everybody wait while I fix the popcorn...
Exuse me for not being hip enough to understand what's obvious to everyone else.
For the uncognesenti, would you care to explain?
| |
| PAUL RAULERSON 2004-06-26, 8:55 pm |
| Which specific supermarket chain might you be talking about? The guy I
currently work for did some
*amazing* things at a Texas supermarket chain about the size you are talking
about, and what's
more, when he left, the company did about the same thing you describe.
He is, to be blunt, a *very* smart guy and his philosophy is quite a bit
different than yours,
though we do get results like you describe.
By the way, I am familiar with HEB, and their IT budget includes a lot of
things you didn't mention,
like distributed systems in the store, warehousing, least cost routing for
the trucks, and RFID. They
do all that with a mainframe and keep the costs really low.
Also, I have yet to see a UNIX or Windows solution anywhere *near* as
efficient of machine and
programmer resources as a well designed mainframe application - which may
consist of hundreds
or even thousands, of programs. And that from a person who loves UNIX and
loaded his Vax11/730
with BSD as soon as he unpacked his personal tapes.
-Paul
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40ddf3d4.115012207@news.optonline.net...
> riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
>
upper[color=darkred]
their[color=darkred]
working[color=darkred]
>
> I encourage programmers to strive for beauty.
>
thoughtful than[color=darkred]
>
> I've seen millions of lines of their actual code. I've rewritten thousands
of
> their programs, in some cases every program in the shop.
>
> The first thing I do is to modularize IO, one program per file. You talked
about
> doing the same. This allows redesign of file structure, or moving it to a
> database, without recompiling or testing application code. When doing
that, I
> usually regression test one or two systems.
>
> The result was modular code that was much easier to maintain and, more
> importantly, make changes with confidence they'd work right the first
time.
>
> For instance, I worked at a medium-sized supermarket company in Texas that
had
> 200 stores and 2 warehouses. Supermarket industry norms said we should be
> spending .5% of sales on IT. The company's sales varied between $1B and
$2B (the
> higher number after a major acquisition), so we should have been spending
> between $5M and $10M. That translates to about 50 programmers and
analysts.
> Several competitors I knew details about, such as HEB in San Antonio, did
indeed
> spend that much and have that many programmers. We spent $1M per year on
total
> IT (hardware, software, paper and programmers) and did it with 6
> programmer/analysts. The difference was $4-9M hard cash to the bottom
line.
> After I left, the IT budget went from $1M, where it had been for 7 years,
to
> $7M, within the industry norm. Performance actually decreased and
programmers
> said it was no longer a fun place to work.
>
> Anticipating rebuttal, you'll say my methodology was tied to a 'cult of
> personality' rather than a universal solution. Not so.. After I left, they
> discarded my systems and replaced them with a canned ERP solution.
>
>
> I've never had trouble getting along with a good programmer, except here.
My
> enemies, except here, have been mediocre and bad programmers, who fealt
> threatened.
>
> When I was manager, the problem solved itself because the bad ones quit
before I
> fired them. In two cases, they tried to make me look bad by hacking into
my
> programs from outside and sabotaging them. In both cases I was able to
capture
> an image of their 'tool' and disassemble it. When confronted with tangible
and
> irrefutable evidence, they quit.
>
> Why is my reception in CLC discrepant with it in the real world? I didn't
live
> in a niche or sheltered environment. I worked with people from divers
> backgrounds ranging from CS academics to self-taught gs with low social
> skills. The answer must be in the dynamics of electronic communication vs.
> face-to-face.
>
> Robert
>
| |
| JerryMouse 2004-06-27, 3:55 am |
| Robert Wagner wrote:
> "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:
>
> Exuse me for not being hip enough to understand what's obvious to
> everyone else. For the uncognesenti, would you care to explain?
Sorry. Over on the news.admin.net-abuse-email (NANAE) newsgroup, when
somebody posts something like:
"You Nazis who maintain anonymous block lists* is interfering with frea
speach and legitimate commerce. You are violating the constitution and my
ability to contact potential customers. This is hurting my business. If you
don't stop I'll file a law suite against you and everyone you ever knew.
Then I'll kill your cat and scare your children. Unblock me immediately!"
There's a tradition: The first follow-up post says: "Popcorn time," implying
the main event is about to start.
I'm serious. Those sy mins over there are rabid. Mark Twain said something
like: "Never get in an argument with somebody who buys ink by the ton."
Fools who insult system administrators with unlimited budgets and access to
the very BEST hackers (such as email admin looking after 50,000 addresses -
at Georgia Tech or Rensselaer Polytechnic), have just written a suicide
note. Within a w, they'll be lucky to have two tin-cans and a string.
-----
*See www.spews.org - SPEWS is an anonymous block list. The web site has no
telephone number, postal address, or email capability. Its servers are
located in Irktusk, Siberia. They are the epitome of lawsuit-proof.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-27, 8:55 am |
| "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:
>Robert Wagner wrote:
>
>Sorry. Over on the news.admin.net-abuse-email (NANAE) newsgroup, when
>somebody posts something like:
>
>"You Nazis who maintain anonymous block lists* is interfering with frea
>speach and legitimate commerce. You are violating the constitution and my
>ability to contact potential customers. This is hurting my business. If you
>don't stop I'll file a law suite against you and everyone you ever knew.
>Then I'll kill your cat and scare your children. Unblock me immediately!"
>
>There's a tradition: The first follow-up post says: "Popcorn time," implying
>the main event is about to start.
I used to fly with that flock (alt.flame), but no longer. Life is too short. Who
needs the grief.
>I'm serious. Those symins over there are rabid. Mark Twain said something
>like: "Never get in an argument with somebody who buys ink by the ton."
>Fools who insult system administrators with unlimited budgets and access to
>the very BEST hackers (such as email admin looking after 50,000 addresses -
>at Georgia Tech or Rensselaer Polytechnic), have just written a suicide
>note. Within a w, they'll be lucky to have two tin-cans and a string.
Rensselaer is my old stomping ground in Albany (along with CalTech). Is this
leading-edge hipness? I would think leadership changes month to month.
>*See www.spews.org - SPEWS is an anonymous block list. The web site has no
>telephone number, postal address, or email capability. Its servers are
>located in Irktusk, Siberia. They are the epitome of lawsuit-proof.
Laughing.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-27, 8:55 am |
| "PAUL RAULERSON" <pkraulerson@verizon.net> wrote:
>Which specific supermarket chain might you be talking about?
The company was Furr's, based in Lubbock. It no longer exists.
> The guy I
>currently work for did some
>*amazing* things at a Texas supermarket chain about the size you are talking
>about, and what's
>more, when he left, the company did about the same thing you describe.
Anybody I might know?
>By the way, I am familiar with HEB, and their IT budget includes a lot of
>things you didn't mention,
>like distributed systems in the store, warehousing, least cost routing for
>the trucks, and RFID. They
>do all that with a mainframe and keep the costs really low.
We had all that too. I forgot to mention them. One of my favorites was a
speech-oriented Order Entry system that ran on PCs and received orders from
Telxon handhelds. Nowadays you can buy the technology from Dialogic et al. Back
then all we had was A-to-D converters. I wrote an audio editor in compiled Basic
using Bascom. Each MSDOS PC could process three parallel threads via
'multi-tasking within the application'. In production, we ran 6-8 PCs.
The most logic-intensive application turned store orders into warehouse picking
documents. It HAD to run in a narrow time window between midnight and 4am. It
did rationing for items with insufficient stock. It calculated Picking Standards
based on physics of tugger movement and warehouse geography. There were tons of
logic in the process. When it cratered, seldom, I personally did production
support. It was mission-critical.
Earlier I worked at Kimbell in Fort Worth, which operated a showplace automated
warehouse. My system picked some items, especially produce, directly off a
receiving dock. It told suppliers on the purchase order "Ship to arrive at
receiving dock x at 3:00 pm." The produce warehouse had less than a one day
supply (vs. Furr's nine day supply). Kimbell was acquired by Winn-Dixie, in
whose hands it died a slow death. Last I heard, they still own it. Store count
is down from 800 to less than 50.
>Also, I have yet to see a UNIX or Windows solution anywhere *near* as
>efficient of machine and
>programmer resources as a well designed mainframe application - which may
>consist of hundreds
>or even thousands, of programs. And that from a person who loves UNIX and
>loaded his Vax11/730
>with BSD as soon as he unpacked his personal tapes.
It was basically a VSE shop augmented with PC applications. We weren't much into
Unix because I found it 'cryptic'. Nowadays, Unix is what I do. I've learned to
love it.
Back in the day (early '80s) I ran drag races between the VSE mainframe running
VSAM (on FBA) vs. a 4.77 MHz PC running Realia's file system. The PC won .. to
my amazement.
Nowadays I work with databases containing millions of rows. Mainframe and Unix
servers have similar CPU and disk speeds. The only difference is cost ..
mainframe cost is out the gazoo. Unix servers are just as fast for a fraction of
the cost, especially if they're running Informix rather than the 'safe choice'
Oracle, whose optimizer doesn't work right.
Hand-wavers like to say X, the object of their derision, "isn't scalable".
Everyone nods in agreement, as though "scalable" were universally understood and
accepted. That's BS. I saw it at Sears, where the payroll system had performance
problems with Informix handling 400K employees. Then I went to US Dept of
Education Direct Loan Program, where Informix routinely handled tables with 30M
rows with no problem.
Later, I worked on Major Big Time databases containing billions of rows.
Performance was not a problem under Oracle, Sybase OR Informix. It's all in the
way databases are indexed and tuned. Today, I saw runtime reduced from 1 hour to
1 second by applying indexes to an Oracle database.
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40ddf3d4.115012207@news.optonline.net...
>upper
>their
>working
>thoughtful than
>of
>about
>that, I
>time.
>had
>$2B (the
>analysts.
>indeed
>total
>line.
>to
>programmers
>My
>before I
>my
>capture
>and
>live
>
>
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-27, 3:55 pm |
| In article <40dde66e.111582040@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>They don't offer an alternative objective metric.
Brooklyn Bridge defense, Mr Wagner... becasue they do/don't do something
means you should, as well?
>I agree that line count is
>fallible, but it's better than nothing.
Behold:
MOVE FLDA TO FLDB.
Move Flda
to Fldb of Wk-Inrec.
Productivity has doubled... and is it not More Beautiful?
>
>Generally, fast programmers are also better programmers. So measures of volume
>are an indirect measure of quality.
Generally, supporting a statistic based on an admittedly fallible metric
with another unsupported generalisation is easily pointed out.
>
>
>I meant 'we code crankers' to be a loose fraternity of programmers who sludge
>through the 'data mines', producing code of varying beauty.
Null statememt, Mr Wagner... 'varying' can be, last I looked, any quantity
from infintessimal to complete.
>Those who take pride
>in their work and those who have turned cynical.
>
>Some programs run like a well-oiled machine; others run like an empty footlocker
>falling down a flight of stairs.
This seems to be true of *anything* constructed by humans, Mr Wagner...
nothing appears to be new or insightful here.
>
>
>What? You're trying to construct a syllogism, but it makes no logical sense.
My apologies for my lack of clarity, Mr Wagner; perhaps a bit of careful
examination might cause the conclusion to be more readily apparent:
'Most of the work you have seen' has quality (M).
'The kind of work produced by 'we code crankers'' has quality (N).
There are three possible relationships between M and N:
M > N (the example given above): the kind of work produced by 'we code
crankers' is inferior in quality to the kind of work seen in The Way
Things Are.
M = N (a later example): the kind of work produced by 'we code crankers'
is equal in quality to the kind of work seen in The Way Things Are.
M < N (a still-later example): the kind of work produced by 'we code
crankers' is superior in quality to the kind of work seen in The Way
Things Are.
There, perhaps this makes things clearer... going back over the material
you elided might allow you to view it in a different light.
>
>Most code crankers write crap code because they don't think beauty matters.
'Beauty', Mr Wagner? Something about the 'eye of the beholder' comes to
mind; 'beauty' has, for a good many years now, been considered a rather...
subjective phenomenon.
>They
>care only about their paycheck and the boss' approval.
If one write code without pay, Mr Wagner, then one's status as a
professional - 'professional' here being used in the usual 'sporting'
sense of 'one who does something in exchange for money' - becomes
rather... questionable.
>I encourage them to do it
>right, not because they'll be rewarded with money or approbation, rather because
>it's right.
'Right' and 'beauty'... it sounds like you speak not of doing one's job,
Mr Wagner, but of some manner of aesthetic; it can be argued that the
aesthetic of a program is 'Does it run reliably and accurately?' and
anything else is the concern of those who would, in other times, spend
their days arguing whether a Major third is a consonance or a dissonance.
Is this what you are calling 'beauty', Mr Wagner... whether the tones fit
together nicely to your ears?
>
>
>Don't hold back. Just write what you're trying to communicate.
I've done so already, Mr Wagner... but as with the example above it seems
that what I write 'doesn't make sense' to some folks out there.
>
>
>You'll have to establish bona fides before readers give credibility to your
>opinions.
When I worry about doing such things, Mr Wagner, I may attend to them.
>Oblique references to philosophers and classical languages doesn't cut
>it .. at least not in the US, perhaps in England.
They seem to 'cut' rather efficiently through statements like ''pol' in
the Ancient Gr means 'people'', don't they?
>Your keyboard hasn't
>demonstrated you know more about Cobol than most of us, and much less than
>Mssrs. Klein, Stevens and Pilston.
I don't believe I have ever made any claim that it has, Mr Wagner... quite
the reverse, I have demonstrated in this forum that there are times when
the most obvious constructs elude my feeble grasp, as I did with an IF -
END-IF construction a bit back; when such a thing happens I thank those
who pointed out to me the Deep and Profound Subtlety equivalent to 'left,
loose, right, tight', admit (once again) to my limitations and go along my
merry way.
DD
| |
| PAUL RAULERSON 2004-06-27, 3:55 pm |
|
"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40de91a6.155419779@news.optonline.net...
> "PAUL RAULERSON" <pkraulerson@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
> The company was Furr's, based in Lubbock. It no longer exists.
>
I thought Furrs was defunct cafeteria style fast food joint. :)
talking[color=darkred]
>
> Anybody I might know?
>
Perhaps, his name is Bob Rainey but he was based more of Tyler. Guy really
has a lot of talent when it comes to
wringing performance out of systems. He also has the perhaps arguable credit
for being the first person to
deploy a major system on S/36 machines in RPG *without* using the RPG cycle.
He now has a bit of a distaste
for anything S/36'ish. <grin>
for[color=darkred]
>
> We had all that too. I forgot to mention them. One of my favorites was a
> speech-oriented Order Entry system that ran on PCs and received orders
from
> Telxon handhelds. Nowadays you can buy the technology from Dialogic et al.
Back
> then all we had was A-to-D converters. I wrote an audio editor in compiled
Basic
> using Bascom. Each MSDOS PC could process three parallel threads via
> 'multi-tasking within the application'. In production, we ran 6-8 PCs.
>
I'm surprised - I worked for McLane corp and they are on the bleeding edge
in some
warehousing technologies, and RFID is rather new to them, as in the past 4
years or so.
Typical sales in the $16 billion dollar range, and about 20 warehouse
locations all
servered from corporate headquarters here in Texas, in real time. Been
trying to do away
with the mainframe, unsucessfully I might add, for about a decade now.
> The most logic-intensive application turned store orders into warehouse
picking
> documents. It HAD to run in a narrow time window between midnight and 4am.
It
> did rationing for items with insufficient stock. It calculated Picking
Standards
> based on physics of tugger movement and warehouse geography. There were
tons of
> logic in the process. When it cratered, seldom, I personally did
production
> support. It was mission-critical.
>
> Earlier I worked at Kimbell in Fort Worth, which operated a showplace
automated
> warehouse. My system picked some items, especially produce, directly off a
> receiving dock. It told suppliers on the purchase order "Ship to arrive at
> receiving dock x at 3:00 pm." The produce warehouse had less than a one
day
> supply (vs. Furr's nine day supply). Kimbell was acquired by Winn-Dixie,
in
> whose hands it died a slow death. Last I heard, they still own it. Store
count
> is down from 800 to less than 50.
>
>
> It was basically a VSE shop augmented with PC applications. We weren't
much into
> Unix because I found it 'cryptic'. Nowadays, Unix is what I do. I've
learned to
> love it.
>
> Back in the day (early '80s) I ran drag races between the VSE mainframe
running
> VSAM (on FBA) vs. a 4.77 MHz PC running Realia's file system. The PC won
... to
> my amazement.
>
Well, some of my buddies are suspicious of VSAM to this day - because they
found it slower than
ISAM/BSAM under VSE 20 to 25 years ago. But those same people have no
experience at all with
OS/390 or z/OS, and no feel for the scalability or performance of todays
machines. Just take a look
at the difference between say, RAMAC and an ESS-800. The ESS-800 typically
has 4 four-processor
gigahertz RS/6000 machines in it to try and keep up with the I/O load of a
typical mainframe. Of course,
part of that is redundancy and load sharing, but the statement is still
basically true.
The same machine can handle hundreds, perhaps even a thousand or so, PC's
connected via Fibre
and not even really break a sweat. That is a good indicator of the really
VAST differences between
a PC and a mainframe. A pSeries box almost always 'beats' an equivalent PC
in any kind of a 'drag'
race by the way, and even those machines are easily ovewhelmed by the sheer
I/O capacity of
a mainframe.
> Nowadays I work with databases containing millions of rows. Mainframe and
Unix
> servers have similar CPU and disk speeds. The only difference is cost ..
> mainframe cost is out the gazoo. Unix servers are just as fast for a
fraction of
> the cost, especially if they're running Informix rather than the 'safe
choice'
> Oracle, whose optimizer doesn't work right.
>
> Hand-wavers like to say X, the object of their derision, "isn't scalable".
> Everyone nods in agreement, as though "scalable" were universally
understood and
> accepted. That's BS. I saw it at Sears, where the payroll system had
performance
> problems with Informix handling 400K employees. Then I went to US Dept of
> Education Direct Loan Program, where Informix routinely handled tables
with 30M
> rows with no problem.
>
> Later, I worked on Major Big Time databases containing billions of rows.
> Performance was not a problem under Oracle, Sybase OR Informix. It's all
in the
> way databases are indexed and tuned. Today, I saw runtime reduced from 1
hour to
> 1 second by applying indexes to an Oracle database.
>
>
the[color=darkred]
Opinion,[color=darkred]
Cobol.[color=darkred]
thousands[color=darkred]
talked[color=darkred]
a[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
be[color=darkred]
spending[color=darkred]
did[color=darkred]
on[color=darkred]
years,[color=darkred]
they[color=darkred]
here.[color=darkred]
into[color=darkred]
tangible[color=darkred]
didn't[color=darkred]
social[color=darkred]
vs.[color=darkred]
>
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-27, 8:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40dde66e.111582040@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
10%[color=darkred]
>
>Brooklyn Bridge defense, Mr Wagner... becasue they do/don't do something
>means you should, as well?
Actually, I did have a better metric. I didn't mention it because revealing it's
technical details would have started another bitter and fruitless debate. It was
a mandatory 'Cobol beautifier' that scored a program on style, which it stored
as a comment near the top. Its purpose was to encourage better programming by
appealing to pride (rather than fear, as many shops do).
The batch process that counted lines of code also gathered each programmer's
average grade. I could compare the grades of new programs to 'old style'
programs that had not been rewritten.
>
>Behold:
>
>MOVE FLDA TO FLDB.
>
>Move Flda
> to Fldb of Wk-Inrec.
>
>Productivity has doubled... and is it not More Beautiful?
The beautifier would have put it back on a single line, and given it a low score
because the names are so short. A log function of average word size went into
the score.
>
>My apologies for my lack of clarity, Mr Wagner; perhaps a bit of careful
>examination might cause the conclusion to be more readily apparent:
>
>'Most of the work you have seen' has quality (M).
>'The kind of work produced by 'we code crankers'' has quality (N).
>
>There are three possible relationships between M and N:
>
>M > N (the example given above): the kind of work produced by 'we code
>crankers' is inferior in quality to the kind of work seen in The Way
>Things Are.
M is greater than N, because a significant percentage of the code I've seen was
my own and my workers', which is better than average.
I misunderstood The Way Things Are to be a reference to N, the status quo, the
average of all programs.
>
>'Beauty', Mr Wagner? Something about the 'eye of the beholder' comes to
>mind; 'beauty' has, for a good many years now, been considered a rather...
>subjective phenomenon.
Programs would be better if programmers strove for ANY standard of beauty, even
a misguided standard.
>
>If one write code without pay, Mr Wagner, then one's status as a
>professional - 'professional' here being used in the usual 'sporting'
>sense of 'one who does something in exchange for money' - becomes
>rather... questionable.
Writing for pay and enjoyment are not exclusive. One can do both. For years, I
programmed eight hours for money, then another eight hours for fun.
because[color=darkred]
>
>'Right' and 'beauty'... it sounds like you speak not of doing one's job,
>Mr Wagner, but of some manner of aesthetic;
Yes. What's wrong with taking pride in one's work?
> it can be argued that the
>aesthetic of a program is 'Does it run reliably and accurately?' and
>anything else is the concern of those who would, in other times, spend
>their days arguing whether a Major third is a consonance or a dissonance.
The test is whether someone else, or the author years later, can understand what
the progam is doing .. in order to maintain it reliably. We don't write programs
just for the machine, we write them so humans can read them as well.
[color=darkred]
You confirmed knowing that some people who care about style find monolithic
programs and GO TO to be ugly. If you heard that enough times, you _might_
consider changing your own style.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-28, 3:55 am |
| "PAUL RAULERSON" <pkraulerson@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40de91a6.155419779@news.optonline.net...
>
>I thought Furrs was defunct cafeteria style fast food joint. :)
When Roy Furr died, in the '70s, it split into two companies -- one for
supermarkets and the other for cafeterias (not fast food). In 1980 the
supermarket company was acquired by two German supermarket giants -- Liebrand
and Tanglemann. I was on their 'turnaround team'. Both Furrs companies went
defunct in the '90s.
>talking
>
>Perhaps, his name is Bob Rainey but he was based more out of Tyler.
Sounds like he was at Brookshire. I hadn't heard of him.
>I'm surprised - I worked for McLane corp and they are on the bleeding edge
>in some
>warehousing technologies, and RFID is rather new to them, as in the past 4
>years or so.
I'm familiar with McLane, the nation's biggest supplier to convenience stores.
Every wholesaler will go RFID next year because WalMart will REQUIRE all its
suppliers to use it on cases and pallets (but not retail SKUs). Since WalMart
touches nearly all retail industries, you'll see RFID on all cases.
Also, the Feds passed a law requiring RFID in tires, which will make it easy to
track vehicles. Privacy advocates will have a fit .. after it's too late.
>Typical sales in the $16 billion dollar range, and about 20 warehouse
>locations all
>servered from corporate headquarters here in Texas, in real time. Been
>trying to do away
>with the mainframe, unsucessfully I might add, for about a decade now.
I'll be available soon. Can I give it a try? :)
> Just take a look
>at the difference between say, RAMAC and an ESS-800. The ESS-800 typically
>has 4 four-processor
>gigahertz RS/6000 machines in it to try and keep up with the I/O load of a
>typical mainframe. Of course,
>part of that is redundancy and load sharing, but the statement is still
>basically true.
I worked on mainframes (at IBM Global) that had 4,000 disk drives on the front
line of Tivoli (SMS) and more than 10,000 drives on the second layer. The front
line was in Schaumberg Il, the second layer in Atlanta and the tapes in Dallas.
Transferring a 1G file between disk farms took less than a minute.
> That is a good indicator of the really
>VAST differences between
>a PC and a mainframe.
Yes, but a single CPU runs at 2-3GHz everywhere. A Cobol program runs on one
CPU. If it's IO-bound, it will probably run faster on a mainframe. If it's
CPU-bound, it will not.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-28, 3:55 am |
| In article <40df2922.194206132@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>Actually, I did have a better metric. I didn't mention it because revealing it's
>technical details would have started another bitter and fruitless debate. It was
>a mandatory 'Cobol beautifier' that scored a program on style, which it stored
>as a comment near the top. Its purpose was to encourage better programming by
>appealing to pride (rather than fear, as many shops do).
So these 'Elements of Style' were put into a program... nothing new there,
many things have been placed into code. Might it be considered
impertinent to inquire into the origin of this program... in other words,
Mr Wagner, who wrote it?
[snip]
>
>The beautifier would have put it back on a single line, and given it a low score
>because the names are so short. A log function of average word size went into
>the score.
Hmmmmm... how interesting that it is now the province of a machine to
evaluate Beauty. For what reason - besides the scoring by a program, as
one can write a program to score anything - would the example given be
other than More Productive and More Beautiful?
>
>
>
>M is greater than N, because a significant percentage of the code I've seen was
>my own and my workers', which is better than average.
A purely unbiased conclusion, of course.
>
>I misunderstood The Way Things Are to be a reference to N, the status quo, the
>average of all programs.
So it seems, Mr Wagner, that your understanding was the exact opposite of
what I intended... my apologies, once again, for being so obscure.
>
>
>Programs would be better if programmers strove for ANY standard of beauty, even
>a misguided standard.
No, Mr Wagner, programs would be better if programmers made sure to
sacrifice their firstborn into the maw of the Fiery Idol... see how easy
it is to make assertions about How Things Should Be?
>
>
>Writing for pay and enjoyment are not exclusive. One can do both. For years, I
>programmed eight hours for money, then another eight hours for fun.
One can do many things in off-hours, Mr Wagner... the fact remains that
when one does something for money one can be referred to as performing
that function 'professionally'.
>
>
>Yes. What's wrong with taking pride in one's work?
Mid-sentences interruptions do not often, in my experience, assist the
flow of a discussion, Mr Wagner... but nothing was said to indicate that
anything might be wrong in taking pride in one's work; what was noticed
was that you posited not professional considerations but aesthetic ones.
>
>
>The test is whether someone else, or the author years later, can understand what
>the progam is doing .. in order to maintain it reliably.
No, Mr Wagner, the test is 'does it run reliably and accurately?'... once
again, see how easy it is to make unsupported assertions?
>We don't write programs
>just for the machine, we write them so humans can read them as well.
Plural majestatus est, Mr Wagner... when I receive word that a 'we' has
elected you as a spokesman then your use of the third person plural might
take on a bit of significance outside of mere inflation. We write
programs so that they will run reliably and accurately... see how easy
argument by assertion is?
>
>
>You confirmed knowing that some people who care about style find monolithic
>programs and GO TO to be ugly. If you heard that enough times, you _might_
>consider changing your own style.
Mr Wagner, mere repetition is a tool often used by advertisers,
propagandists and brainwashers... me, personally, I seem to respond better
to something I was taught to call 'reasoned discourse'.
DD
| |
| Peter E. C. Dashwood 2004-06-28, 3:55 am |
| robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote in message news:<40ddf3d4.115012207@news.optonline.net>...
<snip>
>
> Why is my reception in CLC discrepant with it in the real world? I didn't live
> in a niche or sheltered environment. I worked with people from divers
> backgrounds ranging from CS academics to self-taught gs with low social
> skills. The answer must be in the dynamics of electronic communication vs.
> face-to-face.
>
> Robert
I've been watching some of these threads and I think I can help here,
Robert.
Several people have tried to point out to you simply, and without
malice, what it is that offends them and provokes "attack".
You just can't or won't have it.
Unlike your experience in the "real World" (where you may be the Boss
or have a position of authority), people here can't be fired by you
and it therefore is not possible to bully them. Besides, there are
some very agile minds here who are not backward in coming forward and
who won't let things they disagree with, ride.
I think you're maybe not used to people arguing your case. In real
life, many people will simply walk away and hide their distaste; in
CLC, they will simply persist in showing why they disagree.
I see qualities in you which are admirable; you DO care about what's
right rather than who's right, and you are disarmingly able to accept
criticism when you feel it is fair. The trouble is that sometimes what
you think is "right" is at least debatable, and sometimes you can't
see that what is being said, is fair.
You are obviously a highly experienced and capable programmer with a
passion for COBOL and all of these qualities make your presence here
valuable. Furthermore, I think you have "grown" over the period since
you first visited. (Come to think of it, I guess we all have <sigh> )
I believe a fundamental change of attitude would make your time here
more enjoyable. Stop making war on people whom you consider lesser
than you.
(Where's the honour in that?)
These are your peers. Some may even be your betters <shock! horror!>.
Stop trying to bait them, and employ the logic you know and love so
much to persuade, rather than batter.
I'm not saying you are totally to blame; it just seems that your posts
bring out the worst in CLCers rather than the best...
The fault is NOT in the media; but you might be right that if it was
face to face it would be different. (I suspect there would be a few
fist fights if that were the case <G> ).
Somehow I can't see Robert Wagner choosing words carefully or
attempting to avoid provoking people. That's fine, and you should be
who you are, but you can't then complain about everyone being against
you, or the electronic media affecting your message.
Maybe a compromise that keeps your personality intact but lowers the
"conflict" element in your posts might work?
Perhaps CLCers can be persuaded that "that's just Robert" and cut you
some slack.
You are not the enemy, but neither is the rest of the group, and there
remains some work on your part to prove you can be trusted and some of
the statements of the past were just showmanship...
Hang in there.
Pete.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-28, 3:55 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40df2922.194206132@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>So these 'Elements of Style' were put into a program... nothing new there,
>many things have been placed into code. Might it be considered
>impertinent to inquire into the origin of this program... in other words,
>Mr Wagner, who wrote it?
I wrote it.
score[color=darkred]
>
>Hmmmmm... how interesting that it is now the province of a machine to
>evaluate Beauty. For what reason - besides the scoring by a program, as
>one can write a program to score anything - would the example given be
>other than More Productive and More Beautiful?
Not sure I understand the question. Scoring was mainly based on the ratio of
productive Cobol verbs to 'housekeeping' verbs. There was a minimum program
size, below which a scrore would be statistically unreliable or impossible
(divide by zero). The one-line example, a MOVE statement, is such a 'program'.
If I were writing a scoring program today, it would include a spelling checker.
I hate abbreviations in a program. I know there is a department number in the
structure, but is it 'dept-no', 'dept-nmbr' or 'dpt-nmbr'? It takes longer to
drop a placekeeper and check than it takes to type 'department-number'.
>
>One can do many things in off-hours, Mr Wagner... the fact remains that
>when one does something for money one can be referred to as performing
>that function 'professionally'.
Suppose the off-hours programming becomes the basis for a business (as it did)?
Is it retroactively reclassified as professional?
what[color=darkred]
>
>No, Mr Wagner, the test is 'does it run reliably and accurately?'... once
>again, see how easy it is to make unsupported assertions?
>
>
>Plural majestatus est, Mr Wagner... when I receive word that a 'we' has
>elected you as a spokesman then your use of the third person plural might
>take on a bit of significance outside of mere inflation. We write
>programs so that they will run reliably and accurately... see how easy
>argument by assertion is?
Do a Google on 'literate programming' to read the opinions of Authorities.
The notion of beauty in programming is not my invention. Nearly all good
programmers have it, and can recognize it another's code by glancing at a page
or two .. independent of language or application.
I cited an instance of ECONOMIC benefit from easily read code -- a shop with
1/10 the normal number of programmers that not only maintained with less expense
but also developed strategic advantages over the competition.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-28, 3:55 pm |
| In article <40dff08b.245262754@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>I wrote it.
This does not surprise me in the least, Mr Wagner. There isn't, to my
un-nuanced eye, a nickel's worth of difference between saying 'the manager
says to write your code in a particular way' and 'the beautifier program,
written by the manager and mandated by the manager, says to write your
code in a particular way', as both are implementation of the manager's
rules.
>
>
>Not sure I understand the question. Scoring was mainly based on the ratio of
>productive Cobol verbs to 'housekeeping' verbs. There was a minimum program
>size, below which a scrore would be statistically unreliable or impossible
>(divide by zero). The one-line example, a MOVE statement, is such a 'program'.
>
>If I were writing a scoring program today, it would include a spelling checker.
>I hate abbreviations in a program. I know there is a department number in the
>structure, but is it 'dept-no', 'dept-nmbr' or 'dpt-nmbr'? It takes longer to
>drop a placekeeper and check than it takes to type 'department-number'.
You seem to be saying here that your Time and Wisdom in the field have
given you an appreciation of the benefits of Standardised Style, Mr
Wagner... I believe such a conclusion has been generated in other places
and at other times, it has at its roots an acknowledgement of 'The
Principles of Scientific Management' by Frederick Winslow Taylor,
published in 1911.
>
>
>Suppose the off-hours programming becomes the basis for a business (as it did)?
>Is it retroactively reclassified as professional?
A change in condition can result in a change in classification, Mr
Wagner... but until the conditions change the classifications remain.
>
>
>Do a Google on 'literate programming' to read the opinions of Authorities.
Arguments based on authority are those of the weakest sort, Mr Wagner...
and this is known to be true because St Augustine said that Boetius said
so!
>
>The notion of beauty in programming is not my invention.
I don't recall stating that this was the case.
>Nearly all good
>programmers have it, and can recognize it another's code by glancing at a page
>or two .. independent of language or application.
Hmmmmm... sounds kind of circular. 'Good programmers can recognise beauty
because beauty is recogniseable by good programmers'.
>
>I cited an instance of ECONOMIC benefit from easily read code -- a shop with
>1/10 the normal number of programmers that not only maintained with less expense
>but also developed strategic advantages over the competition.
There's been discussion in this group which has made mention of the fact
that 'ease of reading' might equate to 'familiarity with style', Mr
Wagner; based on such a condition the unquantifiable, value-laden
aesthetics might be tossed aside and replaced with 'everyone learn the
style expected and used here and this familiarity facilitates
maintenance.'
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-06-28, 3:55 pm |
|
On 25-Jun-2004, robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote:
> I looked at lines of code per day. Industry average is 10-15; my people scored
> 30-50. I applied a 'one-tailed p' of 20 to determine anything over 35 was in
> the
> top 10%.
30-50 lines of code per day means that the programmers are doing a lot of other
things besides coding. Things like meeting most of the w with users.
*nobody* codes that slowly when all they're doing is coding. The way to
speed up *lines per day* is to make testing and analysis more efficient.
Often the best way of doing this is improving user interface efficiency.
Educating the users and persuading them to cooperate more at what is, to them,
something that gets in the way of their *real* work.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2004-06-28, 3:55 pm |
|
On 26-Jun-2004, robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote:
>
> They don't offer an alternative objective metric. I agree that line count is
> fallible, but it's better than nothing.
>
> Generally, fast programmers are also better programmers. So measures of volume
> are an indirect measure of quality.
Faster coders tend to be better coders. I'm not sure that testing and
requirements gathering have strong correlations here. And your lines-per-code
measurements obviously weren't coding (they would be ridiculously small if they
were).
Simple problems are also quicker to program solutions for than complex problems.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2004-06-28, 3:55 pm |
| "Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40dcbbeb.35150863@news.optonline.net...
> That speaks to quantity. Quality is subjective. In my Humble Opinion,
their code
> was beautifully crafted.
Hmmm... If your Opinion were truly Humble, it seems to me that you would be
rather more inclined to give it summat less credence than synonymity with
Absolute Fact!
"Oh, Lord! It's hard to be humble
when you're perfect in every way! ... " (Mac Davis, 1980)
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2004-06-28, 3:55 pm |
| "Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40dde66e.111582040@news.optonline.net...
> Oblique references to philosophers and classical languages doesn't cut
> it .. at least not in the US, perhaps in England.
Oblique references to philosophers and classical languages strike me as
meaningful to the educated and to the intelligent. I have known many
Americans who take great pride in rejecting either characterization, but I'm
not sure I consider the trait particularly admirable.
And speaking of educated and intelligent: Is there any correlation between
your demonstrated grasp of the rules of agreement in number between subject
and verb in English (regardless of dialect) and your grasp of what is and
what is not within the specifications of standard COBOL?
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-29, 3:55 am |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40dff08b.245262754@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
expense[color=darkred]
>
>There's been discussion in this group which has made mention of the fact
>that 'ease of reading' might equate to 'familiarity with style', Mr
>Wagner; based on such a condition the unquantifiable, value-laden
>aesthetics might be tossed aside and replaced with 'everyone learn the
>style expected and used here and this familiarity facilitates
>maintenance.'
There was a common style, but it was not imposed by fiat, it was developed by
consensus. Here's how. All programs were community property and each programmer
might be asked to work on any one of them. When a program written by A needed
maintenance a month later, I didn't assign the work to A, I assigned it to B,
and the next time to C. This caused the staff to develop a 'lifeboat bond'. They
knew their code would be informally 'peer reviewed' in the near future. They
realized that cooperation benefitted each more than competition. Praise didn't
all come from me; it came from colleagues. This environment is called 'egoless'
and 'no ownership'. It's part of the Microsoft culture.
One feature of this style is that, if you see ugly code while working on another
part of a program, rewriting it purely to improve aesthetics is a Good Thing.
Mainframe shops have an opposite policy -- if it ain't broke, don't touch it.
The resulting style was better than any single individual could have developed.
Rather than being the lowest common denominator, as seen in other shops, it was
the 'highest denominator' made common. They had synergy.
I didn't tell them to do this; I set up conditions that made it happen.
In 20 years of management, I never had a good programmer leave.
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-29, 3:55 am |
| "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 25-Jun-2004, robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote:
>
scored[color=darkred]
>
>30-50 lines of code per day means that the programmers are doing a lot of other
>things besides coding. Things like meeting most of the w with users.
>*nobody* codes that slowly when all they're doing is coding.
They were doing a lot of maintenance, which produces a small gain in line count.
When one is heads-down coding, 500-1,000 lines per day is feasible. That's burst
mode speed. Sustained rate for production code has been reported at 10-40 lines
per day here:
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~zeil/cs451/L...test_htsu2.html
And 30 lines per day here:
http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Aer.../0/metrics2.pdf
> The way to
>speed up *lines per day* is to make testing and analysis more efficient.
The easiest way is to copy-and-paste.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-29, 3:55 am |
| In article <40e0c055.298464969@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>expense
>
>There was a common style, but it was not imposed by fiat, it was developed by
>consensus.
It might have floated down with Athena in a basket, Mr Wagner... but it
was still 'everyone learn the style expected and used here and this
familiarity facilitates maintenance.'
[snip]
>In 20 years of management, I never had a good programmer leave.
This appears to assume its own conclusion, Mr Wagner, as does the hoary
chestnut 'survival of the fittest'.
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-06-29, 3:55 am |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <40e0c055.298464969@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>It might have floated down with Athena in a basket, Mr Wagner... but it
>was still 'everyone learn the style expected and used here and this
>familiarity facilitates maintenance.'
>
>[snip]
I describe a shop based on consensus. You brush it aside and snip all the
supporting detail. Let me ask -- when you were aged 20, did you think life would
ever devolve to this level of banality, of rejecting ideals?
>
>This appears to assume its own conclusion, Mr Wagner, as does the hoary
>chestnut 'survival of the fittest'.
You're a bitter old man. I recommend getting out more, enjoying your
grandchildren (we just hosted a 4 year-old for two ws), visiting beautiful
places.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-06-29, 8:55 am |
| In article <40e0cf47.302291766@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>I describe a shop based on consensus. You brush it aside and snip all the
>supporting detail.
Mr Wagner, it might have been a shop based on Esperanto... but it was
still 'everyone learn the style expected and uesed here and this
familiarity facilitates maintenance.'
>Let me ask -- when you were aged 20, did you think life would
>ever devolve to this level of banality, of rejecting ideals?
My first response to this, Mr Wagner, was ICor.13:11 : 'When I was a
child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child:
but when I became a man, I put away childish things.'
My second was the variously-attributed 'Anyone who is not a(n) (adherent
to a political system) at 20 has no heart. Anyone who still is at 40 has
no head.'
My third - and last - was 'well, I guess it is time for the extraneous to
be marched in'.
>
>
>You're a bitter old man.
That appears to be directed 'to the man', Mr Wagner, and as such might be
considered an 'ad hominem' response... haven't you castigated others
because you thought they were directing such at you? Is it now time, by
your own standards, for me to generate a rejoinder containing all the
scintillating brilliance as shown in '... and *you're* a poopie-head!'?
>I recommend getting out more, enjoying your
>grandchildren (we just hosted a 4 year-old for two ws), visiting beautiful
>places.
Your recommendations, Mr Wagner, will be given the heed they usually seem
to merit.
DD
|
|
|
|
|