Re: [Condor-devel] MyString::GetCStr deprecated

[Peter Keller <psilord@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 09:12:22AM -0500, Douglas Thain wrote:
> Whoever named YourInsensitiveString clearly was clearly
> on the right track, but think we can do even better.

I once wrote a function on a different team project called:

PoundSquareBlockIntoRoundHole(...)

Where all it did was take one data structure and radically change it
into a different data structure much more suited for an operation on it.

Hrm, come to think of it I believe the schedd could have every one of
its functions renamed to the above and just overloaded with different
signatures into different implementations. It would probably make it
easier to understand.

> For starters, why is it "My" string?  Does this mean that nobody wants to
> claim responsibility for writing this class?

The excitable Professor Basney, who wrote MyProxy, easily takes credit for
what he wrote, so I don't think your claim is valid.

> Perhaps it would be
> much more accurate to call it NotMyString to disclaim ownership, or
> perhaps NotYourFathersString to indicate that it really doesn't do
> what you think it should.  Or, perhaps a Condor Master might indicate
> to an apprentice that ThisNotTheStringYouAreLookingFor because you
> really should be using C++ strings in new code.

Coding is a human endeavour and if you aren't describing the semantic
aspect of the entity in terms of the problem domain via its name, you
are describing your emotional stance with respect to it.

> For example, condor_shadow.jim was dutifully preserved
> for years after several Jims had been checked in and out. 

Ever rename a directory in cvs? *shudder* The source code revision tool
_prevented us_ from performing that rename. :)

> Of course, all of these things can be tracked with revision control so
> that you know who is perpetrating crimes upon the code.  But, the
> savvy developer knows ways to trick "cvs blame" to hide their tracks.
> In order of use over the years:

So, if this is the case, why isn't the most popular source control system
anonymizing for who checked in what?

The joel on software article makes a lot of sense financially, but not
artistically. :) Forever those two are intertwined. How many times can
you make the same cup on the pottery wheel, eh? Computers are the ones
who are supposed to be doing boring and repetitive things, not humans.

Later,
-pete