You're getting heavily downvoted and I'd love to know why. I've seen similar attitudes toward testing among the groups I've worked with, nobody really wants to do it.
Are folks downvoting this because they don't like testing? Is this idea that prevalent?
> The philosophy of python is there should be only one pythonic way of doing things.
Thiiis really hasn't been my experience with the Python community. Every place I've worked on a Python codebase has done it a different way, and none of them have agreed on what is "pythonic".
Each team has claimed that _their_ approach is the most python-y way to do it, but they've all celebrated Python as not being "restrictive" like "other" languages. It's really weird.
> Thiiis really hasn't been my experience with the Python community. Every place I've worked on a Python codebase has done it a different way, and none of them have agreed on what is "pythonic".
Exactly my experience from day one. It's a laughable statement that the Python community keeps repeated with almost no basis in reality.
Compared to C++ and Perl I find python code to be really consistent across projects. I agree the language isn't perfect at it but why do anything to make it worse?
Name one prominent scientist who is on record (and has tenure) who holds the position that the origin of the big bang as taught today is un-scientific. Of course there are Christian scientists, but Academia only promotes and gives tenure to atheists for a growing number of fields.
Name any scientist that has a position other than the big bang theory, that has any evidence backing it?
The standard isn't "can't include God", but "must fit the facts". God is unprovable and untestable; making a theory depend on a God makes the theory unprovable and untestable. Most scientists who also have religious beliefs don't see the two conflicting; their religion gives the why, their profession the how.
Or more succinctly, no one is blackballing scientists for saying "I believe God caused the Big Bang". But claims of, for instance, "I believe the world was created 6000 years ago over a period of 7 literal days" requires some evidence beyond "My understanding of the Bible tells me so", and doesn't jibe with your initial statement of empirical scientific study.
Isn't it kind of arrogant to think that one knows the mechanisms of God so surely as to settle the question on the origins of the universe?
The bible, esp. genesis, is taken metaphorically, or else a lot of problematic interpretations will arise.
Also, even scholars of the Abrahamic faiths do not readily disclose their intimate religious faith, lest their work be discredited — such as a professor who studies Christianity, but holds Islamic faith.
This is a wildly uninformed opinion. People have always written to social norms, and this person is unwilling to acknowledge changing attitudes towards types of writing. I would love a concrete example of the kinds of things this guy thinks are being 'self-censored'.
There are other manufacturers that are building ARM servers these days. AWS even went so far as too build their own chip: https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/graviton/
Morning! I'm a long-time startup developer who's spent the last few years working with small companies helping them get their products launched.
I do everything from strategy to backend development to mobile apps. Most recently I helped a launch a React Native mobile app in the App Store and trained two of their developers on best practices.
I've done Rails, Node, React, React Native, and Ethereum work. Let's work together!
It's a great process for reigning in "great" engineers that produce a ton of technical debt. It's a fantastic approach for making your engineering team more stable and product delivery more predictable.
> It's a great process for reigning in "great" engineers that produce a ton of technical debt
So any positives can safely be attributed to the new process and any negatives are clearly just the new process shining a light on existing problems.
Gotcha.
And the parent poster was wondering why people were so cynical.
> making your engineering team more stable
Can you expand upon what you mean by more stable?
One of the main selling points to management is it becomes much easier to switch developers between teams.
> product delivery more predictable.
In what sense? And through what mechanism?
It does reduce risk on short term deliverables but that's a very narrow interpretation of predictable.
It's certainly not the case as an external customer - trying to nail down an xp team to a fixed deadline more than a few weeks away is an exercise in frustration.
It's not Scrum. It's Extreme Programming. It works fantastically well, even when you're __fixing bugs__. The whole idea is that you need to be paired so that two people can understand and problem solve around the bug. You end up with twice the understanding that you had before. It's worth it.
Here's a radical thought - maybe Extreme Programming (I still think this is a genius marketing name :) works for some people and doesn't work for others?
After trying so many of these methodologies I've come to realize that people just work differently. It's self-defeating to try to push Extreme Programming or whatever on someone who prefers and is efficient at working alone.
Maybe adopt some of Scrum/XP/whatever that can be adopted at a high-level, but trying to push it through a team composed of people with different personalities and different ways of working just defeats the entire purpose.
My thoughts exactly. I just __hate it__. I was super bored, super frustrated, and it was a complete waste of time. I resigned after a year of struggle.
It worked extremely well results-wise for the few months we did it. I went home at the end of the day mentally exhausted, though. You are essentially having a conversation for 9 hours straight, 5 days per week.
I could have done 10x work working alone. I speak from experience. In my current company we use Kanban, and I am super productive. We only do things which are useful for us.
I dunno. Sometimes it's easier to simply stare at a problem & noodle your way through it. That's hard to do when forced to jibber jabber. Is the ol' stare & noodle a pair-friendly activity?
I haven't done pairing myself, but I suspect it's highly variable based on the two specific individuals. Certainly I've noted smart and capable people I work with well, and some that I don't. Not every smart/capable pair is going to mesh. Just because I respect you doesn't mean I can work well with you, especially in such an intimate set up.
It works better though, if you start from zero and hire people that drank the Koolaid.
It's hard to shoehorn it into an existing team where some portion of the team doesn't believe the premise. For example, some people (introverts, Asperger's spectrum, etc) will just never be comfortable with pairing.
Pivotal doesn't have this problem because developers that don't believe wouldn't ever apply for a job there.
But, that doesn't help Pivotal in their consulting practice. Very few of their clients would have the same advantage.
No it __is not working fantastically well__. I speak from experience. There are also numerous studies (I can link to them) which detail why pair programming wastes time if not used for the right problem (mentoring or super-difficult task).
Yes. Pair programming works well if someone is being mentored or you are facing a very hard problem. In other cases it is a waste of time. You can read a lot of studies about this topic.
No, I'm not actually assuming that, because I realize there is only negligible difference between major browsers today in terms of rendering performance, and none can approach the rendering performance of native UI frameworks on mobile.
But I am assuming that a browser offering a gigantic leap in UX through native-like rendering performance will entice web app developers to recommend that browser over others, because it's nigh impossible to build a consistently 60fps non trivial app with native-like interactions and transitions on the web today, while Servo and Webrender aim to make 60fps on the web the norm rather than the exception.
I occasionally run Firefox (out of nostalgia, idealism, or the need to test a site), and the fact that it is so slow is absolutely what stops me from switching back to it.
Nah. One piece of rendering I particularly care about is interactive SVG performance, and -- while, as another thread says, we can't expect smooth 60 FPS experiences from current desktop browsers -- the difference between Chrome and Firefox is the difference between 15 FPS and 1 FPS.
Recently all toolbar icons in Firefox have been converted to SVGs [1] and in the process several performance problems were found and fixed or are in the process of being fixed [2]. You may want to try out a recent Nightly build.
I adopted chrome because of the speed, but I keep using it because I'm used to it and it works fine. I know my way in and out of chrome's dev tools. On firefox it would be a struggle to figure out a web development routine.
Are folks downvoting this because they don't like testing? Is this idea that prevalent?