3 ms·
Do you mean to say they are simpler than gearboxes and hence should continue to function using one method always? If you meant they are more complicated than g
by softwareman 13y ago
Do you mean to say they are simpler than gearboxes and hence should continue to function using one method always?
If you meant they are more complicated than gearboxes, then I think we are saying the same thing and either you aren't getting it or I am not doing a good job conveying it.
If you are think there is absolutely no analogy, gimme one and I can say the same for that too. If this was the case then, I am sorry but I believe that statement of yours was absolutely unthoughful.
- bonemachine 13y agoI mean that you can't just shove them into this kind of a working mode, then into some other kind, as would say a teenager play around with shifting from 2nd upto 5th the first time he gets to drive his dad's Mazda all by himself. Which is about the same degree of attachment expressed in the idea that a project manger can "shift" programmers into and out of pair programming mode the way one would work a stickshift. Working habits are intensely personal, idiosyncratic things. People -- by which I mean creative, productive, self aware & self-managing people; i.e. the only kind you should ever hire -- almost by definition don't like being pushed into working one way or another. Or being simply told what works best (because X or Y said so).
- softwareman 13y agoSersiouly dude, you didnt get it. I said that pushing in general is bad. Not bad, its stupid. I dont know where the hell you got the idea that I meant some manager pushing people to pair program. I didnt say that. Working habits could be personal but there is something called as team work. You should also make sure the person is capable of collaborating. Collaboration does not always means attending meetings.