Re: Sorts (revised)

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 scor
ed
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 tha
n
attacks on my personality.

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 th
an
>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

robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote
 

> That speaks to quantity. Quality is subjective. In my Humble Opinion, thei
r
>  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 t
han
> 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.

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <40dcbbeb.35150863@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote: 
10% 
>
>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 volu
me
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 sludg
e
through the 'data mines', producing code of varying beauty. Those who take p
ride
in their work and those who have turned cynical.

Some programs run like a well-oiled machine; others run like an empty footlo
cker
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 d
o it
right, not because they'll be rewarded with money or approbation, rather bec
ause
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.

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 o
f
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 a
bout
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 h
ad
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 in
deed
spend that much and have that many programmers. We spent $1M per year on tot
al
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,  t
o
$7M, within the industry norm. Performance actually decreased and programmer
s
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 befo
re 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 captu
re
an image of their 'tool' and disassemble it. When confronted with tangible a
nd
irrefutable evidence, they quit.

Why is my reception in CLC discrepant with it in the real world? I didn't li
ve
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

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...

"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 e
lse.
For the uncognesenti, would you care to explain?

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 
their 
working 
>
> I encourage programmers to strive for beauty.
> 
thoughtful than 
>
> 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
>

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 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.

-----
*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.

"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," implyin
g
>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 somethin
g
>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.