On 12/6/2010 11:25 AM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
I sure hope that we don't dismiss the reading of such books just
because every experienced programmer knows about refactoring.
I apologize if I gave that impression. I think books like these provide
programmers with a head start on techniques and
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
hi,
I know that this has cropped up in a parallel thread, but anyway I would
like a new thread on this. In a LUG list a ruby guy made a statement
that 'No self respecting developer could function without having read
d. Refactoring without having test cases is a strong test for bravery.
Usually I classify myself as timid in such situations and either write some
tests or back off.
Absolutely. I'd put myself into the same category.
___
BangPypers mailing list
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Anand Balachandran Pillai
abpil...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to follow up my post with another one, but here is an old link fro
JOS related to this, which is still relevant.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html
This post
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Vijay Ramachandran vijay...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Anand Balachandran Pillai
abpil...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to follow up my post with another one, but here is an old link fro
JOS related to this, which is still
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 10:10 +0530, Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
[dubious aside: remember this one?
Please note that there is no deeper meaning to be read into the fact
that I mistakenly pasted the quote twice.
two hours of wasted time trying to figure out if you had refactored the
quote
--
Refactoring just means changing the internals without adding/removing
functionality. The book is good, but refactoring can be applied in many
other contexts too. It has been happening long before the book came out. The
big insight in the book is not the refactoring patterns themselves. The big
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Siddharta G siddharta.li...@gmail.comwrote:
Refactoring just means changing the internals without adding/removing
functionality. The book is good, but refactoring can be applied in many
other contexts too. It has been happening long before the book came out.
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai
abpil...@gmail.com wrote:
That is re-architecting or re-designing depending on which side of the
conference table you are - not re-factoring.
Err... Refactoring _is_ redesigning, that is the whole purpose of
refactoring.
The
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:53 PM, Siddharta G siddharta.li...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai
abpil...@gmail.com wrote:
That is re-architecting or re-designing depending on which side of the
conference table you are - not re-factoring.
I had sent this reply below earlier ...not sure why it didn't go thru'
...anyways, enough has already been said about this, however, since I already
wrote this reply below, I thought I might as well make my point ...
Hi Santosh,
On 12/04/2010 05:36 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote:
My 2 cents on this
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:39 PM, steve st...@lonetwin.net wrote:
I had sent this reply below earlier ...not sure why it didn't go thru'
...anyways, enough has already been said about this, however, since I
already wrote this reply below, I thought I might as well make my point ...
Hi Santosh,
[snip]
[dubious aside: remember this one?
Please note that there is no deeper meaning to be read into the fact
that I mistakenly pasted the quote twice.
-Taj.
___
BangPypers mailing list
BangPypers@python.org
On 12/4/2010 5:36 PM, Santosh Rajan wrote
[snip]
Let us look at software product development, and let us look at all
the top open source software development projects like linux, apache,
mozilla etc etc. I have not seen refactoring as described by the book
used by any of the open source
[dubious aside: remember this one?
There once was a master programmer who wrote unstructured programs. A novice
programmer, seeking to imitate him, also began to write unstructured
programs. When the novice asked the master to evaluate his progress, the
master criticized him for writing
I sure hope that we don't dismiss the reading of such books just
because every experienced programmer knows about refactoring.
-- Sriram
On 12/6/10, Siddharta G siddharta.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice quote.
You hit the main point: Refactoring has always been done. Everyone does it.
The book
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Sirtaj Singh Kang sir...@sirtaj.net wrote:
[snip]
[dubious aside: remember this one?
Please note that there is no deeper meaning to be read into the fact that I
mistakenly pasted the quote twice.
[...]
Man, and here was I thinking that you were killing two
My 2 cents on this subject. I think the problem of differing
viewpoints is mainly due to the fact that there are two kinds of
software development.
1) Software product development
2) Bespoke software development.
Let us look at software product development, and let us look at all
the top open
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 16:19, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
After all the hue and cry dies down, it
makes good sense to go back to the code and slowly remove all the
repetitive parts, make the hacks look good and redo the monkey patching
- if you have time.
Since this is a thread
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 17:36, Santosh Rajan santra...@gmail.com wrote:
I have not seen refactoring as described by the book
used by any of the open source software products. I would like to know
if any one can show me refactoring used in software product
development.
This may not
be true with badly written or maintained systems, which is why
many people shudder at the thought of refactoring their code base.
In such houses the thinking is, if it works, leave it alone, an attitude
that is the exact opposite of the refactor.
Actually, the book is
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 09:51 +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
Please point me to any use of strong words against of what many of us
follow.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.ilugc/66657
--
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
___
BangPypers
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 11:37 +0530, Anand Balachandran Pillai wrote:
Sorry to follow up my post with another one, but here is an old link
fro
JOS related to this, which is still relevant.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html
no need to apologise - I was just about to
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 09:51 +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
Please point me to any use of strong words against of what many of us
follow.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.user-groups.linux.ilugc/66657
Kenneth,
Hi,
Just a note in sideways, about my own experience and opinion on this topic ...
On 12/01/2010 04:33 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
hi,
I know that this has cropped up in a parallel thread, but anyway I would
like a new thread on this. In a LUG list a ruby guy made a statement
that 'No self
On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
It's rather disappointing when I see a nice discussion thread
degenerate into taking potshots at others - especially by posts by
people who otherwise contribute in very constructive ways.
I'm a Thoughtworker, proud of what and how we do
On Fri, Dec 03 2010, Sidu Ponnappa wrote:
[...]
I'm more worried that a perfectly good book and certain engineering
practices that I find hugely useful will be ignored either because of
sweeping, religious statements by zealots, or because a bunch of
people have made an industry creating
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 15:34 +0530, steve wrote:
Most good engineering practices get thrown out of the window under
pressure.
this is the real world. Monkey patching, hacks, repeating the same code
in 10 different places with minor changes - all this and more happens
when the deadline is
Your last point about fixing things and cleaning it up (refactoring?)
becomes easy and possible if good engineering practices were followed
in the first place. Repeating the same mistakes again and increasing
your workload is not very smart.
On 12/3/10, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 12:41:37PM +0530, Anand Balachandran Pillai wrote:
'No self respecting developer could function without having read the
refactoring book'.
I just realized that I am not a self-respecting developer after
reading this.
Wow!. You stole my sentence. Double
It's rather disappointing when I see a nice discussion thread
degenerate into taking potshots at others - especially by posts by
people who otherwise contribute in very constructive ways.
I'm a Thoughtworker, proud of what and how we do (including promoting
better software development
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 08:40:41AM +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
It's rather disappointing when I see a nice discussion thread
degenerate into taking potshots at others - especially by posts by
people who otherwise contribute in very constructive ways.
I'm a Thoughtworker, proud of what and
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:51:43AM +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
Please point me to any use of strong words against of what many of us follow.
That refactoring and that self-respect thing. The first is what many
practise, and second is a strong word. :)
I think, the thread got a bit digressed.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Senthil Kumaran orsent...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:51:43AM +0530, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
Please point me to any use of strong words against of what many of us
follow.
That refactoring and that self-respect thing. The first is what many
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Anand Balachandran Pillai
abpil...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to follow up my post with another one, but here is an old link fro
JOS related to this, which is still relevant.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html
--
--Anand
--
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:35, Anand Balachandran Pillai
abpil...@gmail.com wrote:
However refactoring as discussed
here is a more of a standardized process using tools and approaches
designed for it, with some little buzz added to the mix.
Refactoring might have devolved into that now, but
hi,
I know that this has cropped up in a parallel thread, but anyway I would
like a new thread on this. In a LUG list a ruby guy made a statement
that 'No self respecting developer could function without having read
the refactoring book'. How relevant is this to python? I do not see much
except
I don't want to start an argument here. But here is my personal take on this.
1) A self respecting developer will NOT need to refactor his code in
the first place.
2) Given the movement towards functional programming, you don't need
refactoring at all.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Kenneth
2010/12/1 Santosh Rajan santra...@gmail.com:
I don't want to start an argument here.
That is a good way to start an argument. :)
But here is my personal take on this.
1) A self respecting developer will NOT need to refactor his code in
the first place.
2) Given the movement towards
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
hi,
I know that this has cropped up in a parallel thread, but anyway I would
like a new thread on this. In a LUG list a ruby guy made a statement
that 'No self respecting developer could function without having read
On Wed, Dec 01 2010, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
[...]
'No self respecting developer could function without having read the
refactoring book'.
[...]
If that's his tone of voice and his attitude, I'd pigeonhole him as a
zealot and ignore him. Given Fowlers reputation, I'm sure it's a good
book
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 18:03 +0530, Ramakrishna Reddy wrote:
the refactoring book'. How relevant is this to python? I do not see
much
except years ago something called bicycle repair man - is that still
used? or is this whole thing buzz?
Its not a Buzz for sure. Refactoring is just a neat
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Noufal Ibrahim nou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01 2010, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
[...]
'No self respecting developer could function without having read the
refactoring book'.
I just realized that I am not a self-respecting developer after reading
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
hi,
I know that this has cropped up in a parallel thread, but anyway I would
like a new thread on this. In a LUG list a ruby guy made a statement
that 'No self respecting developer could function without having read
44 matches
Mail list logo
