in reply to Re^3: Initiative or otherwise?
in thread Initiative or otherwise?

We may not make an informed statement on the abilities of programmer B, but we know enough to make an informed guess.

Programmer B's method of development was cut and paste, followed by light editing. People who routinely develop this way are generally not very good. Good developers engage in code reuse by modularizing and then reusing modular chunks.

This is why I object to dws's rewrite. It changes the evidence of programmer B's development methodology significantly for the better. It also eliminates the common element of starting with someone else's work and presenting the result as your own.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re^3: Initiative or otherwise?
by dws (Chancellor) on Jul 08, 2002 at 22:41 UTC
    Programmer B's method of development was cut and paste, followed by light editing. People who routinely develop this way are generally not very good.

    The task is to prepare a demo. To infer from that what Programmer B's "routine" development strategy is requires assumptions based on facts not in evidence.

    It also eliminates the common element of starting with someone else's work and presenting the result as your own.

    Where do you see any indication that Programmer B misrepresented his/her work?

[reply]
      To infer from that what Programmer B's "routine" development strategy is requires assumptions based on facts not in evidence.
      Are we discussing the validity of code reuse or an approach to developing demos? If you place too many constraints, the analogy becomes meaningless and we end up debating a specific situation bearing no relation to anyone else's reality.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]

In Section Meditations