I like this one. But it's only really possible to do that with a fully unit tested application. And when rewriting it out, you'll need a test in place to reproduce the error before actually fixing it.
> If something is worth doing once, it's worth building a tool to do it.
People I work with find me odd for doing little tools that automate things. I find this to be an excellent indicator of how good a developer is and how much I can trust them to develop something for me.
> It is not enough to do your best: you must know what to do, and THEN do your best.
Sage advice. Never thought of it like that, but very insightful.
> when the cart stops
> do you whip the cart
> or whip the ox?
Don't get it. To place in coding analog, does this mean that people would whip the code rather than the developers of said code? If so, then that doesn't make sense. developers will tend to bear the brunt of any failures of the code they produce. Don't they?
I agree. To a point. You shouldn't diet to lose weight, but you should have a diet that gives you all your required nutrients. If your 'diet' only gives you stuff that's high in fat and sugar, you're going to get fat. If your 'diet' only gives you salad, you're going to get malnourished and waste away.
> Don't patch bugs out, rewrite them out.
I like this one. But it's only really possible to do that with a fully unit tested application. And when rewriting it out, you'll need a test in place to reproduce the error before actually fixing it.
> If something is worth doing once, it's worth building a tool to do it.
People I work with find me odd for doing little tools that automate things. I find this to be an excellent indicator of how good a developer is and how much I can trust them to develop something for me.
> It is not enough to do your best: you must know what to do, and THEN do your best.
Sage advice. Never thought of it like that, but very insightful.
> when the cart stops > do you whip the cart > or whip the ox?
Don't get it. To place in coding analog, does this mean that people would whip the code rather than the developers of said code? If so, then that doesn't make sense. developers will tend to bear the brunt of any failures of the code they produce. Don't they?