>>> "Alan Churchill" <SASL001@savian.net> 5/9/2006 2:49 pm >>> wrote
Unfortunately Peter, this doesn't work well either IMO.
Maybe not, but see below
For example, I had a great programmer once work on a problem on and off
for 6 weeks without solving it. The issue was that he tried too hard to
view it mathematically rather than stepping back and viewing it
holistically. He had made a fundamental error on step 1 and he then
wasted the rest of the time chasing bugs that weren't real. Once the
issue was pointed out, it was solved in 30 minutes.
BTW, I always liked comp sci people mixed with liberal arts folks
because it made a stronger team for solving problems.
Programming is often closer to black arts than anything resembling a
process. I can't imagine how you can measure it and I've never seen
Well, you have seen programmers measured. In fact, you just did it.
You said "I had a great programmer once....", that is measurement. How
did you know he was a 'great' programmer?
Although, as I said, I know little about programming, I think there
would be general agreement here that Ian is a great SAS programmer. Why
would there be agreement? We must be basing our judgement on SOMETHING,
and somehow we are measuring programming skill.
So, I'll pose these question to the programmers here:
What do you mean when you say something like "Ian is a great
Why do all (I would guess ALL) of you agree on this?
or, put it another way. If you looked at some code by, say,
Donald Knuth (to stop using Ian as an example) would you be fairly
confident that you could tell it was good code?
To get back to my inbox task, obviously, you need a bunch of tasks, for
reliability, but I don't see why it couldn't work