On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 10:10 +0530, Sirtaj Singh Kang wrote:
> > [dubious aside: remember this one?
>
> Please note that there is no deeper meaning to be read into the fact
> that I mistakenly pasted the quote twice.
two hours of wasted time trying to figure out if you had refactored the
quote
-
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Vijay Ramachandran wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Anand Balachandran Pillai <
>
> > abpil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Sorry to follow up my post with another one, but here is an old link fro
> > JOS related to this, which is s
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Anand Balachandran Pillai <
> abpil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Sorry to follow up my post with another one, but here is an old link fro
> JOS related to this, which is still relevant.
>
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog69.html
>
>
> d. Refactoring without having test cases is a strong test for bravery.
> Usually I classify myself as timid in such situations and either write some
> tests or back off.
>
Absolutely. I'd put myself into the same category.
___
BangPypers mailing list
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
> hi,
>
> I know that this has cropped up in a parallel thread, but anyway I would
> like a new thread on this. In a LUG list a ruby guy made a statement
> that 'No self respecting developer could function without having read
> the refactor
On 12/6/2010 11:44 AM, Gora Mohanty wrote:
Man, and here was I thinking that you were killing two birds with one
stone: "To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion".
That's exactly the one I thought about, and figured I'd better clarify
before someone accused me of being arro
On 12/6/2010 11:25 AM, Sriram Narayanan wrote:
I sure hope that we don't dismiss the reading of such books just
because "every experienced programmer knows about refactoring".
I apologize if I gave that impression. I think books like these provide
programmers with a head start on techniques an
