It is my belief that these things perpetuate. People bring their baggage with them.
And I think the conversation is starting to get a little "religious" - in the sense that in my experience it is possible to "manage" anything - but that the only time I really have the right to push my view onto a group is when they are under my control to manage. Sean and I have had a similar conversation before. If I were working for him - I would have to bend to his line of management. If the roles were to be reversed he'd have to bend to mine. Neither of us is "right" - it is just our way of managing an environment to provide the best outcome. My personal opinion is that there is nothing wrong with IIF or ?: if you know what you are doing with them. That's my final thought. Gary On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 14:22:42 -0800, Spike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with pretty much all of what you say Gary, but the point I was > trying to make was that this wasn't the standard at a single > organization. It was the standard at pretty much every large > organization my brother in law has worked. He's worked for a lot of > banks and a couple of hospitals, environments where mistakes can have > pretty dire consequences. Given that most of these places held similar > coding standards it's indicative, but not proof, that there was more to > it than lack of understanding of the consequences. Quite the opposite I > would guess. > > Spike > > Gary Menzel wrote: > > Actually - I have worked at some large organisations similar to those > > mentioned and I can tell you that, in those cases, it was often > > ignorance or fear that caused language features to be banned in coding > > standards. They were often written by people who didnt understand the > > languages they were setting standards for. > > > > So it is incorrect to assume that they were set based on experience. > > Referring to standards of other companies and assuming they are > > correct because those companies have a high profile should be > > questioned. > > > > The standards may have been set during the companies infancy in the > > language and they wanted to make a controlled, gradual transition and > > stick to "familiar" constructs. > > > > One example I will give (without naming the Australian Government > > agency) was a situation where "experienced" OO programmers (who knew C > > and C++ well enough - along with other OO languages such as Smalltalk) > > who were able to write OO extensions to C (using macro's similar to > > what Microsoft eventually used for transitional code from C to C++ for > > their OLE platform) were provided the Borland C++ compiler and told > > "DONT USE ANY OF THE OO FEATURES". And all the OO related libraries > > were removed to ensure that "accidents" wouldn't happen. > > > > And the only reason they could give for doing it was "WE dont > > understand it well enough". Note the emphasis on WE. This came from > > people in the organisation who probably didnt even know the C language > > either. > > > > And, just for reference, this was back in 1990 and I was one of the > > people involved in the actual work (i.e. so I the story comes first > > hand). Now all you have to do is work out where I was working in 1990 > > and you'll know who I am talking about. > > > > Dont get me wrong. Coding standards are good. But sometimes they are > > formuated out of fear and misunderstanding and should always be > > regularly challenged to ensure that the grounds on which they were > > formulated still stack up against the knowledge and information gained > > over time. And, if you are going to adopt the coding standards of any > > other organisation, you should always challenge the premise under > > which they were made and see if that applies to your organisation. > > > > Regards, > > Gary Menzel > > > > > > On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 11:36:07 -0800, Spike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>They were fired for using ?: which was explicitly banned by the coding > >>practices. I should probably have made that clearer. > >> > >>The point I was trying to make (unsuccessfully by the look of it) is > >>that large organizations which have far more experience than I do of > >>writing software often have very strong opinions that what you're > >>advocating is a bad idea. I'm not sure how they formed those opinions, > >>but I'd bet previous experience played a big part in it. > >> > >>Spike > >> > >> > >> > >>Adam Cameron wrote: > >> > >>>>If being fired for not following coding practices is something that you > >>>>don't think is significant then you clearly have a different perspective > >>>>to me. > >>> > >>> > >>>Well you didn't say they were fierd for not following coding practices, you > >>>said they weer fired for using the ?: operator. > >>> > >>>If "not using it" was in the coding practices I had to adhere to, then > >>>sure; I'd not use it. However if I was in the position to do something > >>>about the coding practices, I'd be seeing to it they were at least > >>>reviewed, because I don't think that part of them is particularly > >>>well-thought-out. > >>> > >> > >>-- > >> > >>-------------------------------------------- > >>Stephen Milligan > >>Code poet for hire > >>http://www.spike.org.uk > >> > >>Do you cfeclipse? http://cfeclipse.tigris.org > >> > >>--- > >>You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------- > Stephen Milligan > Code poet for hire > http://www.spike.org.uk > > Do you cfeclipse? http://cfeclipse.tigris.org > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/ > --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
