|
I'm not the captain. Call me Ismale.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Nice! 
A haben't thought of that. 
Cheers!
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
I shall call you Sir Ismale.
At least then someone would have called you "Sir," without adding "you're making a scene"...
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Good one. Where's the "Like" button?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
As a thanks I shall pass you your very own bread knife[^]
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Is not that obvious. For instance I don't see the default section.
By the way, captain is right (and you are wrong) on null->"unknown", 'virgins' definitely have sex... 
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: I don't see the default section.
Finally someone notices it.
To think in one piece of code so many wrong can be 
here is your prize ![Sheep | [baah]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/sheep.gif)
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Most living organisms are neither male nor female, what is the problem?
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: Most living organisms are neither male nor female,
nor breathing, nor seeing, nor understanding, nor smiling, nor free, nor alive, nor dead, nor transexual, nor bisexual, nor asexual, nor here, nor included in the result, nor able work a computer... oooh look puppy!
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
wiki wrote: Norrie May-Welby (born 23 May 1961), also known as norrie mAy-Welby
Wow that is a huge difference!
I am CBadger also known as CBadger ![Badger | [badger,badger,badger,badger...]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/badger.gif)
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder wich restrooms zie is allowed to use ...
|
|
|
|
|
switch _IsMale
case null:
return "unknown";
case 0:
return "Female";
case 1:
return "Male";
default:
return "Occasionally";
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: return "Occasionally";
But occasionally is the opposite of never... So IsMale? Occasionally.
And my dog is occasionally SuperDog
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
You are an employer, You get two CVs for a role in your company.
Candidate#1:
He has taken part in debugging competitions, good marks in selective computer practicals, Some papers presented, and few (Average) tips & tricks article published. BUT he has an inconsistent academic results. Poor marks in subjects like Maths, which includes some failures & reattempts in exams. & Tries to talk like a nerd in the telephonic interview.
Candidate#2 : Good & consistent academic results including handful of marks in Maths. Good replies & limited talks in the telephonic interview.
Whom do you pick ? Just imagine it's for a project that has a tightly packed schedule for achieving milestones.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Candidate #1. You can't fake what he does, or achieve it with BS.
[edit] I missed the "tries to", and read "talks like a nerd". What do you mean by that?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on the project, it's criticality etc.
#1 will probably be more adaptive, work under pressure, to an ever changing scope definition. However they will also be the most likely to move on if something better comes along, so you would need to work hard to keep them.
#2 dependable, no hurrying them along in for the long haul.
If they were companies, #1 would be like an aggressive start up, #2 would be the lumbering giant.
I would probably tend to favour #1.
|
|
|
|
|
Like I'd replied to Pete[^], The immature-geek like employee tends to spoil the team spirit & productivity.
But the normal disciplined one follows the plans correctly & has a sense of guilt when a deadline is missed.
Moreover, we have enough training in place. The desciplined simply follows it and completes whatever is assigned, on time. If the team lead & project Manager plan their targets well, just with a bunch of "disciplined", we can complete any complex project on time.
A well known devil is better than unknown angel. We don't need geekangels really. The guy with a neat & consistent academic tells about his accountability just with his CV. And the interview panel is never going to pick a dumb-head-in-disguise with a neat record. We have neat procedures to pick the right candidate that includes technical/Programming tests.
So the disciplined candidate is better.
A disciplined geek could be best, but we don't get one so easily.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
It's difficult to say, but you do seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on academic results, which might not really be that important. Number 1 might not be good at doing exams, but could easily be as academically capable as number 2. While number 2 may excel at exams but be completely useless when it comes to real world problem solving.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I tend to feel I'd better go with a guy who is consistent at least at SOMETHING. Rather than a GeekoNerdoHacker spoiling the project plan completely. I should further classify the geek types
Type 1. The Productive Geek -
* That is matured enough to know what a project plan means.
* Helps to iron out undiscoverable spikes/bugs on the way.
* Finishes his work first. Then gives a helping hand to mates.
* Focus is on Geeking but no Geek-like talking.
* The task list gets Auto-Prioritized in mind without anybody explaining the priority.
Type 2. The lame unproductive geek like thing -
This kicks the team out of track showing bad examples.
* Slacks out a lot of time with sheer over-confidence at everything.
* On everyday status update, says "It's in progress" at everything assigned and keeps working on something else that he feels is amusing, Until the final stinker reaches his butt.
* He projects as if he has the ultimate vision on project completion.
* He leaves home early when his peers work days and nights to complete their tasks to meet their daily schedules. (just like how Bruce lee stays unmoved seeing a silly street fights.)
* He picks the task from the least priority order.
* Finally proves the recruiter that he is miserably wrong with his decision.
I've been struggling with a Type 2 disease.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
modified 19-Sep-13 4:31am.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: * He leaves home early when his peers work days and nights to complete their tasks to meet their daily schedules. (just like how Bruce lee stays unmoved seeing a silly street fights.)
I would do the same to be honest. I do not care much for projects I'm (or good senior devs/architects) not involved in estimating the duration of or that seem terribly out of sync with reality. That just shows complete failure from management. Managers like that do not deserve respect or overtime, it's on their heads.
I would on the other hand work overtime without pay if sh*t hit the fan with something unexpected which goes above the 25-50% risk already included in the estimations (even if those can sometime be traced to poor understanding from the team that estimated the project).
Maybe I'm just too spoiled with good managers that prefer projects on budget and on time rather than on time and screw the budget (overtime work is quite expensive).
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody likes micro-management. And the Companies that do these would see the grave quite soon. We don't actually focus on the work timing. The developers can come and go anytime.
If not the daily targets, the weekly ones should be met at least.
Missing out all weekly deadlines without a sense of guilt saying "I know better, I can complete it" simply spoils the plan. This might work on a small tool the geek is working alone. But this would never suit a complex project where multiple developers are involved in different modules.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: Whom do you pick ? Just imagine it's for a project that has a tightly packed schedule for achieving milestones.
I would go for the option of referencing previous jobs.
No use asking in vain here as there are a whole lot of examples of very successful IT (& other) businessmen/women (millionaires and up) from every imaginable background and walk of life 
Best advice: Trust your gut
Loading signature...
. . . Please Wait . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Trading creativity for reliability. What do you like more?
Veni, vidi, vici.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been programming for 20 of my 30 years (hobby, academic competitions, some random apps for acquaintances). I have crawled my way through University.
But, I have learned work ethics while working, mostly without hindering product timelines (I hate not finishing something I already said I will finish at a specified date, plus close deadline -> best focus).
I know very few good programmers that did well in Uni. I also know very few good programmers that did badly in Uni.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
