Reactions

Reflections on Tampa CodeCamp

In retrospect, I probably should have posted a ‘reflection’ on my JaxDUG talk as well. That was my first talk and I believe my first PowerPoint deck ever created. The deck is pretty much the same except I had only a minor amount of notes in the first and a few items weren’t there. The DDLDML slide is the only one I recall that I added. In any case, I want to thank all of the people that came to my talk. I hope it was informative. I received some feedback on it. All of it was pretty positive. I again received multiple requests for more code samples. I...

posted @ Tuesday, July 17, 2007 5:52 AM | Feedback (1)

re: Testing your code

A colleague of mine asked me to comment on this post. http://blog.madskristensen.dk/post/Testing-your-code.aspx For the duration of my post, I will assume that Mads is a "smart" guy, not a "stupid" guy. =) First, I suppose I should give my views of unit testing. If you are writing business logic code, I think you should write unit tests for it. Always. It's that simple. So, moving on.  I’m very ambivalent about unit testing and always have been for many different reasons. Although testing is very important, I often find unit testing to be a time consuming liability but it depends on the project. When smart...

posted @ Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:31 PM | Feedback (2)

re: Imprisoning Mort

this is in response to http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2007/06/20/Imprisoning-Mort.aspx does this mean that I am bound to write unmaintainable [sic] code and should be locked down to a very small set of "safe" choices, which were chosen for me by those Above Me ? In my experience, those often placed above me are _not_ there because they are smarter or better. I rarely see that they make the best choices for what is "safe" code. I would say I rarely see choices that just plain don't suck. Why would you hire someone to write completely disposable code? If you have no faith in their ability, why...

posted @ Monday, July 09, 2007 8:05 PM | Feedback (0)

Re: IBM Lays off 1 billion people!

OK, so it wasn't that many. I think it's funny that so many people are suprised that IBM is trying to basically take advantage of cheaper working conditions in other places. They want to kill their pensions and take advantage of the brilliant people working in other countries that don't require 6 figures per year and a pension plan to do mediocre work. Ultimately the stock game is all about the people at the top getting richer than they already are. It's a game they play, and that's the way it is. Calling them scumbags or unethical etc is just...

posted @ Friday, May 04, 2007 11:01 PM | Feedback (2)