cl@datlog.co.uk (Charles Lambert) (04/28/88)
In article <1066@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes on the subject "Style rules for C shops": >... the only case where one person should work on another person's >code is when the responsibility for that piece of code changes hands as >well. (The "too many cooks" argument - with software, as with *most* >other things, I believe that "too many" means "more than one".) This disturbs me deeply; it is an advocation of ego-bound programming. No piece of code should be "owned" by one person to the extent that nobody else may work on it. That simply conceals and encourages idiosynchrasy, which is the bane of maintenance. A piece of code should be common property, and the style of it should be arbitrated by group inspection and a common philosophy. This encourages cohesion, disseminates good idioms, and promotes egoless programming. ----------------- Charles Lambert
daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (05/03/88)
In article <759@dlhpedg.co.uk> cl@datlog.co.uk (Charles Lambert) writes: >No piece of code should be "owned" by one person to the extent that nobody >else may work on it. That simply conceals and encourages idiosynchrasy, [sic] >which is the bane of maintenance. A piece of code should be common property, >and the style of it should be arbitrated by group inspection and a common >philosophy. This encourages cohesion, disseminates good idioms, and >promotes egoless programming. On the other hand, egoless programming is a theory which has not been shown to work in all cases. Egofull programming has been a commercial and technical success in several widely-discussed cases. One of the most accessible examples was the development of the Honeywell CP/6 operating system, which succeeded despite corporate demands that it be written according to corporate standards in GMAP (an assembler) was actually written in a modern language (PL/6) and by a team where crosstraining was common, but individuals were strictly responsible for "their part", and were encouraged to do a good, if non-standard job. CP/6 is popular with a significant minority of the customer base, really quite elegant, and rather well-written. The PL/6 language late became a corporate standard. Public source: datamation. --dave (once of Honeywell TSDC/CCSC) c-b ps: if your turnover is signifiicant, don't even think about it. If you can start with low turnover, though, this can help keep it low. -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor yunexus utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.