September 27, 2009Re: Null references redux
Posted in reply to Lutger
Hello Lutger, > BCS wrote: > >> Hello Lutger, >> >>> The answer may >>> depend on [...] >>> the habits of the 'programmers' in question, I don't know. >> If you can't trust the programmer to write good code, replace them >> with someone you can trust. There will never be a usable language >> that can take in garbage and spit out correct programs. >> > Hi. I don't think this argument will work, for several reasons: > [...] > > Do you maintain that a programmer who can't deal with non-nullable > references without hacking them away is unusually incompetent? Incompetent? No. But I wouldn't want to hire a programer that *habitually* (and unnecessarily) hacks past a feature designed to prevent bugs. The best race car driver in the world is clearly not incompetent but would still get a ticket on public roads for speeding or following to close. > I don't > know about this. Actually I suspect non-nullable references by default > are in the end safer (whatever that means), but only if they don't > complicate the use of nullable references. I'll second that.
September 28, 2009OT: Management of Coders (was: Null references redux)
Posted in reply to BCS
BCS wrote: [...] > I wouldn't want to hire a programer that *habitually* (and > unnecessarily) hacks past a feature designed to prevent bugs. In the short time of an interview its not possible to test for habits (or necessarity) to hack past a feature designed to provent bugs. Therefore the only measures of code quality are the number of bugs detected by the users---or the number of WTF's exclaimed during a code review. Are you able to give an upper limit for the number of WTF's during a code review for which the coder is not fired? -manfred