This demands work: June 2003

Self-referential

My Blogger blogID is 3349153.

I'm putting this here so Google will index something like "Dan Moniz Blogger blogID 3349153" to this page/post. I only need this so my Blogger friends (that is, friends who work on Blogger) can help me out, since they always ask for this from me, although they run the system. I found out my blogID by logging into Blogger and looking at the URL.

Test post!

Test post with w.bloggar.

Idempotency

More from ll1-discuss, this humorous tidbit from Guy Steele in a rambling thread (arguably the same thread mentioned in my previous post, but with significant drift) about laws, correctness, language, programming, and legal interpretation:

When the Clinton impeachment mess was going on, when I read
in the news about the definition of "sexual relations" that
had been agreed upon by the lawyers, my mathematical training
led me to notice immediately that the definition was not
symmetric; that is, that under that definition it was possible
for A to have "sexual relations" with B while at the same time
B was not having "sexual relations" with A. And Clinton spotted
that bug and tried to exploit it, which struck me as hackishly
brilliant (though politically stupid and morally arguable).

When a mathematician encounters the definition of a new relation,
he should always immediately ask: (a) Is it symmetric? (b) Is it
transitive? (c) Is it reflexive? (In the case of sexual relations,
I would say (a) yes, (b) it depends on whether you're concerned about
disease transmission, for example, and (c) let's not go there.)
(In the case of a binary operator, you ask whether it is commutative,
associative, has an identity, has idempotent values, and so on.)

A few days ahead

Catching up on email, I saw the following in a message from Geoffrey Knauth on ll1-discuss from mid-May. This is an excerpt from a message Geoffrey sent to the list as part of a thread on XP; it's a brilliant statement on what matters most when programming with a group:

Maybe all my old-timer colleagues would really prefer for the young'ns to just get the hell out.

Hell No. I'm almost 43, so I guess I'm officially ancient (>40? >30?). I work with a 22 year-old who's incredible. He's sees what's right from what's garbage instantly, he codes fast, his code works, and it's readable. He never went to college. I learn from him EVERY TIME I interact with him. Having him on my current project keeps me honest and sharp. He likes me because I have "experience" and know some old tricks. He may not realize often I'm only a few days ahead of him.

I've heard "old-timers" express one beef about some young'ns: CS professors lament some of their students do things they insist are new that were first done ages ago. When children learn to walk or talk, do we parents squash their joy (and ours) with a "You aren't the first!"

Hardly.

What XP, pair programming, code ownership/non-ownership, all boil down to for me is people working together with mutual respect, being good listeners and teachers, jumping in with ideas, creating something shared, and keeping the fire burning.