|
I tried Pear Programming, but it never worked on my Apple so I stopped it immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: I tried Pear Programming, but it never worked on my Apple
It's not a core language no wonder it didn't work!
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
My goal in life is to have a psychiatric disorder named after me.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: It's not a core language
+1 for being as bad -- or worse -- than mine.
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: +1 for being as bad -- or worse -- than mine.
In the quality stakes, I reckon he pipped you at the post.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, there are times it's really useful - pair programming is not some newfangled idea, I've been sitting down with another coder as necessary since I've been programming DOS apps 25 years ago.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
We all have, but pair programming is a discipline usually thrust upon people.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Philpott wrote: but pair programming is a discipline usually thrust upon people.
 However, calling pair programming a discipline is like asking a 5 year old to write the Kama Sutra. Nobody actually knows what the hell it is or how to do it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I first tried pair programing about 20 years ago. An unmitigated disaster for everyone involved. I will never do it again.
Sitting down with someone now and again to help each other is not the same as pair programming.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Sitting down with someone now and again to help each other is not the same as pair programming.
Ah. I guess you have a point, but as I commented in another post, reading on what people write about pair programming, it seems nobody really knows how to do it.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
We do pair programming occasionally, but it's not an everyday occurrence.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Does anyone still participate in pair programming?
Never really caught on in the Netherlands, mostly because it is perceived as "doubling" the cost of code.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I find it useful for bugfixing, otherwise not.
|
|
|
|
|
That is using a cardboard programmer; not the same as pair programming.
|
|
|
|
|
Never heard the term before, but I'm going to keep it in mind, and yes I've done that many times.
But I was thinking of those times when you actually pass that level and have four eyes trying to find the error instead of two. Admittedly not often as the cardboard usually fixes it.
|
|
|
|
|
Dev1: Ha! Look what Dev3 did here!
Dev2: OMG! That's such a noob mistake! But did you see what he did last week?!
Etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Ménage goes better a trois than a deux.
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karel Čapek wrote: Isn't it the same for both sides?
Oddly, no. In the NFL each team uses it's own balls when they're on offense.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why nobody outside US understand this game 
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd bet most people inside the US didn't know about the balls.
I have no idea why they do it that way...
On a related note: Can you explain the difference between a legal tackle vs. an illegal tackle in soccer? It seems totally arbitrary from tackle to tackle let alone game to game.
|
|
|
|
|
An illegal tackle in 'soccer' (hate that word) is the one where you get caught by the ref.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the right answer.
There is a wonderful phrase running all through the laws of Association Football;
If, in the opinion of the referee, ...
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
That's easy, although it has varied. A legal tackle is one where the ball is played, not the man. If contact is made with the man, then it is illegal. Sometimes a referee will allow a technically illegal tackle if the contact was accidental, the outcome wasn't changed by the contact and calling the foul would constitute an unnecessary interruption in the game. Known as "Play on".
Now the "controversial" bits:
A tackle from behind has from time-to-time been considered illegal, although if no contact with the person is made, I've never seen it in the rules. It's actually very hard to tackle from behind and not make contact though. Some refs will always blow for such a tackle.
Shoulder-to-shoulder: Technically this contact is allowed although plenty of refs will blow for shoulder-to-shoulder challenges.
Finally, "taking the man with the ball": If the contact is man to ball, ball to man, it's never a foul. It can often be hard to tell though and referees will call a foul when hasn't been made.
It's been a long while since I've read an FA rule book and there may have been changes, but them were the rules when I used to ref!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
No I can't. Nearly same thing in ice hockey (my favorite). And in ice hockey it becomes strange, at least in europe (I hope not in Canada/US)...one is not allowed to disturb/check a player when he is not near the puck.....
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
...Undo of my message just before.....
*lol* I like clipboard...so try again:
No I can't. Nearly same thing in ice hockey (my favorite). And in ice hockey it becomes strange, at least in europe (I hope not in Canada/US)...one is not allowed to disturb/check a player when he is not near the puck.....
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
