Tammy's Error Counting and Tool Set

On 31 Dec 2004 07:40:16 -0800, krasicki@consultant.com wrote:

>IMO, your premise is entirely wrong.  Writing code is analogous to a
>writing exercise in any tongue.  An author who is drafting work [which
>is exactly what developers do using any number of techniques] is
>neither interested in errors [bugs] but in getting *something* of
>interest initiated.  The fact that there are grammatical mistakes,
>brain farts, and gotchas along the way is inconsequential.

This reminds me of a chat I had with my colleague Chet the other day.
We're getting back to Smalltalk after a long time doing C# and Ruby
and such. We were talking about the way the tools change the way you
work.

An analogy came up in that conversation to the different way one works
when writing on paper with a pencil, vs composing in (e.g.) Word. In
Word, there's always this strong temptation to go fix the little green
squiggles, or to fiddle with the indentation, instead of get the ideas
down.

It changes the work.

Now, on the other hand, there is some chance for each error that it
will NOT get cleaned up. Therefore, I would expect that if Tammy's
"research" turned up something interesting enough, one might be able
to reduce errors in, which would inevitably reduce errors out. By
enough to make it worth while? That I doubt, but frankly don't know.

Regards,

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Good observation about writing in Word.  There's all kinds of nagware
out there that commands our *attention* but as you say it's very hard
to know if it helps or not - our attention is split so many ways as it
is.

Even taken at face value, what Tammy asks is unsustainable.  Recently,
I was treated for some shoulder pain and was advised to straighten my
posture - easier said than done.  Just try remembering to do something
*all the time* that's a background task - mindbending to sustain.
Tammy may as well tell an overweight person to count calories to lose
weight - makes sense, works for a while... but...

Another aside on this very subject are languages like Jython that just
eliminate a lot of the syntax and typing nonsense.  The reported
increase in Java productivity is 6x.

krasicki@consultant.com wrote:

> Good observation about writing in Word.  There's all kinds of nagware
> out there that commands our *attention* but as you say it's very hard
> to know if it helps or not - our attention is split so many ways as it
> is.

As it is your attention to control, nothing commands your attention
if you don't want it to. I think blaming tools or the environment
is a bit of a cop out.

>
> Even taken at face value, what Tammy asks is unsustainable.

Certainly. Completely agree. But how about you try it for an
hour or two and see what you find?

>Recently,I was treated for some shoulder pain

I hope you get better.

>and was advised to straighten my
> posture - easier said than done.

I found sitting on one of those balls instead of chair for a while
helped as i had no choice but to try to stabalize myself. Pilates
also helps.

> Just try remembering to do something
> *all the time* that's a background task - mindbending to sustain.

You won't be able to do it. Human mind doesn't work that way.

> Tammy may as well tell an overweight person to count calories to lose
> weight - makes sense, works for a while... but...

And that would be correct. If you don't know how many calories
you are eating then you can't lose weight. Saying it's hard
isn't a reason or an excuse. Been there.

> Another aside on this very subject are languages like Jython that just
> eliminate a lot of the syntax and typing nonsense.  The reported
> increase in Java productivity is 6x.

A very good strategy.

"As it is your attention to control, nothing commands your attention
if you don't want it to. I think blaming tools or the environment
is a bit of a cop out."

FYI via Slashdot.org:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pa...1128/cover.html
as for your many other replies I must say I'm speechless.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:04:04 -0800, Tammy <qqq@ppppp.com> wrote:
 
>
>As it is your attention to control, nothing commands your attention
>if you don't want it to. I think blaming tools or the environment
>is a bit of a cop out.

<snip/>
> 
>
>You won't be able to do it. Human mind doesn't work that way.

Seems to me that you contradict yourself here. The environment clamors
for attention, and different environments do it different ways. The
mind always responds ... also in different ways.

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

"Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@acm.org> wrote in message
 news:3efbt09r2o3s4g06v4g4q66flfq68gpcb2@
4ax.com...
> On 31 Dec 2004 07:40:16 -0800, krasicki@consultant.com wrote:
> 
>
> This reminds me of a chat I had with my colleague Chet the other day.
> We're getting back to Smalltalk after a long time doing C# and Ruby
> and such. We were talking about the way the tools change the way you
> work.
>
> An analogy came up in that conversation to the different way one works
> when writing on paper with a pencil, vs composing in (e.g.) Word. In
> Word, there's always this strong temptation to go fix the little green
> squiggles, or to fiddle with the indentation, instead of get the ideas
> down.
>
> It changes the work.
>
> Now, on the other hand, there is some chance for each error that it
> will NOT get cleaned up. Therefore, I would expect that if Tammy's
> "research" turned up something interesting enough, one might be able
> to reduce errors in, which would inevitably reduce errors out. By
> enough to make it worth while? That I doubt, but frankly don't know.

Everyone would have their own error count number based on their own style of
TDD. Sort of like that mattress they advertise where you have your own sleep
number. At conferences we could compare our Tammy Index with other XPers -
"I wouldn't want to pair with him, I hear he's a 6", "I hear Ron Jeffries is
a 19" and so on.....

Regards

SP

krasicki wrote:
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/pa...1128/cover.html

And where in the article does it say you do not have choice
and your attention is not under your control? Nobody makes
you eat macdonalds. Nobody makes you read your email, pager,
etc.

> as for your many other replies I must say I'm speechless.

As was i with your responses. Even more so i am sure, because
of you twisted my simple request into something it was not.

> And where in the article does it say you do not have choice and your
attention is not under your control?

I'll give you very clear examples.  In the past few years both my
parents died..  anyone who has children will tell you they answer the
phone.  When your boss expects you to be available for meetings you
read your emails. The list goes on.

We are not automatons and nothing you say about this subject is
compelling.  The article doesn't have to tell you you are not in
control, you aren't.  Life happens.  Your condescending tone is
insulting to anyone who has to smell it on this thread.

> ...because of you twisted my simple request into something it was
not.

If you were capable of comprehending what is being said to you you
would cease and desist with your accusations.  Go back and read what
was being said to you and read it with an open mind.  I've never been
accused of being a diplomat but I can assure you your argument was not
being twisted - it was being responded to in a way that a true
scientist might be equally 'curious' to entertain.