Comments for Situated Geekery

Comment on Shhh. We’re Hunting Yabbits by The shortest amount of time that could possibly work – shrinking your iterations | ext.IT

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:38:53 +0000

[...] resistance to change was recently summed up by Mike “GeePaw” Hill as a case of the “Yabbits.” Yabbitting is when people [...]

Comment on How TDD and Pairing Increase Production by Why Pair Programming Doesn’t Reduce Productivity : David Laing’s blog

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:57:00 +0000

[...] http://anarchycreek.com/2009/05/26/how-tdd-and-pairing-increase-production/ [...]

Comment on DoubleDawgDare 7: One Spike, No Buffy by GeePawHill

GeePawHill — Wed, 26 May 2010 11:50:12 +0000

Ahhh, Jeff. Even if I *thought* you were being insulting, which I didn’t, I’d still think that you’ve carried your weight around this project, thus having certain rights.
On the road right now, and I haven’t prepared my talk at Microsoft (couldn’t resist the brag) that happens on the way home. That has to be my priority this weekend.
*But*, I freely admit to being consumed with guilt over stalling so long on the next episode. I speak at MS, arrive home the 8th of June, leave almost immediately for the first beach week my fam and I have had in five years, *then* I get back home. I swear on my honor as a — nevermind — I swear I will record episode as soon as that beach week ends.
Seriously? Your interest really helps me, so thank you! — Hill

Comment on DoubleDawgDare 7: One Spike, No Buffy by Jeff Grigg

Jeff Grigg — Wed, 26 May 2010 00:50:06 +0000

(I did *not* mean that as an insult.)

You have an idea. I’d like to see you run with it! ;->

Comment on DoubleDawgDare 7: One Spike, No Buffy by Jeff Grigg

Jeff Grigg — Mon, 24 May 2010 11:28:28 +0000

Re: “I’m so close I can *taste* it.”

So does it taste like chicken? ;->

Comment on DoubleDawgDare 7: One Spike, No Buffy by Jeff Grigg

Jeff Grigg — Fri, 14 May 2010 02:31:10 +0000

Note: My solution, above, does not use a type hierarchy. The use of reflection enables it to be very procedural, rather than object-oriented. And I would say that the comments I put in the code indicate code smells. But without a type hierarchy, there isn’t any appropriate place to “hang the code.” Moving in the direction of a type hierarchy sounds like a good idea, to me.

Comment on DoubleDawgDare Series by Jeff Grigg

Jeff Grigg — Wed, 12 May 2010 00:56:13 +0000

I haven’t been there for a while, but now that I’ve poked around there a bit I realize that there’s not much Java at http://refactormycode.com/

Comment on DoubleDawgDare Series by Jeff Grigg

Jeff Grigg — Tue, 11 May 2010 23:45:50 +0000

If this exercise gets you, the readers, excited, be sure to check out
http://refactormycode.com/

It’s a place where people ask for refactoring (and bug fixing) on a wide variety of small focused problems.

I’ve been making a few small contributions there.
– jeff

Comment on The Projector Rule: A Moving Target Code Standard by Willem van den Ende

Willem van den Ende — Tue, 11 May 2010 06:16:40 +0000

I have a yes-but-no-but reaction to this (see also: yabitting ). Yes, your code should be good enough that you feel proud when you show it to your colleagues. No, but your code needs the projector the most when you’re so ashamed of it you want to go and hide in a dark corner somewhere…

Your colleagues should always be prepared to help you improve your code. Programming is a learning activity. I write bad code from time to time. That is, I know it sucks at the moment I wrote it, and may have an idea why but don’t know how to make it better. In hindsight my code often sucks, but I just didn’t know any better at the time…

Comment on DoubleDawgDare 7: One Spike, No Buffy by Jeff Grigg

Jeff Grigg — Mon, 10 May 2010 14:19:58 +0000

Knowing where you want to go is a problem? Gosh, I wish I had more problems like that! ;->

http://markpt.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/confusing-directions.jpg