|
Actually, I'm still using SourceSafe. I can't stand it. It doesn't handle long lines in a file so it always reports every single minified JS file as having differences in it. It doesn't work on Windows 7/8 properly and certain hacks need to be put in place. Not that it wasn't good in its day though.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess its been about ten years since I last used it. I have a certain respect for its non-branching ethos.
The thing I do remember about it though is lots of very odd files, and the occasional moment when everything would get corrupted completely. That and shouting over the room "after you for Hyperblaster.cpp Dave!"
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention that there was not really any security in the old VSS.
Anyone with commit access could go screw with the repository directly without leaving an audit trail!
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately Visual Source Safe is live and well, it just got its name changed to Vault http://sourcegear.com/[^] and i hate it. SVN and/or GIT work so much better...
Rant over.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Put a big sign on the wall:
A PROCESS SHOULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED IF:
1: It demonstrably improves products or services from the customer perspective.
2: It demonstrably improves the efficiency of product/service implementation without having a negative effect on point 1.
3: It demonstrably makes the job easier for those implementing the product/service, without having a negative effect on points 1 or 2.
All too many poor and/or inappropriate processes are put in place because they're either fashionable or they appeal to one or more people personally.
If a process, no matter how "in" it is or how appealing it is to your or anyone else's tastes, does not *demonstrably* meet the requirements above, it should be replaced with processes that do.
And keep pounding the word "demonstrably". If someone wants a new process, he has to demonstrate the effects it will have on the company, including all the cons (make sure that any discussions go straight to seeking out the cons, rather than bathing in the glory of the pros).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
And far, far too many groups put the customer perspective last, if they consider it at all.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you "Usability Driven Development" -
- If the ops don't understand, it ain't n't usable!
- If the devs don't understand, it ain't n't usable!
- If the users don't understand, it ain't n't usable!
- If the support don't understand, it ain't n't usable!
- If the managers don't understand, it ain't n't usable!
So make it usable!
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: - If the managers don't understand, it ain't n't usable!
Then 99% of my code is not usable 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
You fell straight into the trap. What does the manager need to understand? He [probably] won't understand the code, nor does he need to. He will need to understand what it does, how it can be used, maybe who will buy it. THAT is his understanding.
Now if you look at each stakeholder, think about what they need to understand. The code may be elegant and simple but the UI is cluttered - FAIL for the user. A beautiful and simple UX with an unmaintainable heap behind - FAIL for the devs.
Think about what people want, not just what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: Now if you look at each stakeholder, think about what they need to understand.
The code may be elegant and simple but the UI is cluttered - FAIL for the user.
A beautiful and simple UX with an unmaintainable heap behind - FAIL for the devs.
That is what I always try. I usually ask the future users and their "seniors" or maintenance guys or ingenieurs when developing the concept, to make it as close as I can to their "wills" or needs.
Then I program the code in such a way, it is self-explaining. Not only for other people, but for me if I have to get back there somewhen in the future, when I don't remember anymore what I thought when programming it.
My team leader always aks... does what it has to do? Does it with realiability and without blockades? Did you finish in time or get more money for the "extras"? If yes to all... then he is happy and let me manage myself on my own.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Put a big sign on the wall:
Done.[^]
Putting it on my blog ensures that I will remember it myself!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Coming from someone like you, Marc, that's high praise.
Let's hope a few people listen.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
This is what happens when non-developers/programmers, call the shots for too long a period of time. Half the tools that we are forced to use, we really should not be using. People use technology just because it is new, not because it is correct.
Also, most of us (I want to say all) are forced to meet unrealistic deadlines for production releases. Haste makes waste, on every level, every time.
I have never worked on a project in my 15+ year career that has not ended in failure of some sort, if we went too fast.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm enjoying android development at the mo, like combile windows backend and tablet frontend.
|
|
|
|
|
RugbyLeague wrote: Deployment is an utter farce. Source control is hideous. Web Services are appalling hacks. Web development is a massive step backwards dragging all manner of shonky technologies and libraries together.
When it comes to non-Microsoft products, I completely agree. Just getting all the pieces working for a relatively simple Ruby on Rails website deployed (dealing with version changes in Ubuntu, Apache, Passenger, not to mention Rails), all of which require editing config files, changing source code or loading gems that let you still use "legacy" code (especially in the constantly changing Rails ORM) is enough to get me running back to Windows, C#, etc. And don't even get me started on the insane state of web development with the myriad of [the next awesome framework]-js "stuff."
The thing that annoys and saddens me about the state of affairs is the old adage, point a finger at someone and you have four fingers pointing back at you. Because at the end of the day, we have only ourselves to blame.
This is the other edge of the open source sword that nobody seems to be talking about -- that anyone can create a framework. While I rant occasionally about Microsoft, there is at least some sense of direction and a certain degree of cohesiveness and product integration. Sure, there's quite a few dead ends (Silverlight, WPF, Object Spaces, etc.) but when, for example, I wrote an article on the history of C#, I came to realize that there actually does seem to be a master plan, and a good one, at work. I would say the same thing of Windows itself, even though I loathe W8.
Conversely, the OS community often seems like a monster flailing in its own excrement, hoping the sh*t will stick somewhere, with only an occasional diamond being dredged up, but unfortunately still covered in sh*t.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Thank goodness, I thought it was just me . I spend longer thinking about other peoples frameworks than it would have taken me to write half the things from scratch .
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get me started on frameworks
|
|
|
|
|
RugbyLeague wrote: Don't get me started on frameworks
I wish that that phrase had been on everyone's lips for the past few years.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Torrance wrote: I spend longer thinking about other peoples frameworks than it would have taken
me to write half the things from scratch .
I just had to upvote this.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you just need a new job?
I think that there are two types of programmers, career programmers and "I'm doing this because I love it" programmers, and there's nothing wrong with either, I would say the industry needs both.
If you do it because you love it and you are working in a place designed for, and with other, career programmers, you're going to have a bad time!
Equally, if it's just a career for you, and you're working other programmers who would be there even if nobody was paying them, it's going to suck.
So maybe you fall into one category, and you're working at a company designed for the other category?
|
|
|
|
|
RugbyLeague wrote: Web Services are appalling hacks. Web development is a massive step backwards dragging all manner of shonky technologies and libraries together.
Ahh, I believe I see the problem. Put the web down, and take a step back.
Before the web, there were other types of things that required programming. In fact, it turns out that there still are things that require programming not related to the web; plenty of it.
I would argue that you should give up hacking, and shift over to programming 
This guy may need some help Drones[^] (Hopefully he is not planning on connecting it to the web).
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is I am being asked to do web stuff - not something I have ever done before. It's like wading through treacle.
|
|
|
|
|
After translating the new word you just taught me, "treacle", to "molasses", I would agree.
Ironically, I think that would be a good name for "The Web", "The Treacle", or the "Inter-treacles"...
If you like programming, find a job that requires the type of programming and tools that you enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
I started my own business to develop the tools I enjoy. Unfortunately I sold it
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a case of Android development with NDK.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
