One of the funniest stories I heard in years was related by a colleague in Pocket Kings (Full Tilt Poker). I can't remember the exact details, so I'm paraphrasing here somewhat.
My colleague, Mike, used to work with an edgy and stressed character who was always threatening to go postal and shoot everyone in the office. One day, when they were all at lunch, they got round to asking the guy who he would shoot in the office, and in what order.
He replied, "Well, the first person I'm going to drill is that fucking Peter guy."
"What?! But Peter is your best friend in the office. You two are practically inseparable. Why would you shoot him first - or at all?"
"Well, for two reasons: One, I wouldn't want him to witness the carnage, and go through the fear of knowing he was next; and two, I think it'd send a clear message that I'm deadly fucking serious!"
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Wicklow-centric Meaning of Liff definitions #12
Knockadoo (n.)
A willful act of violence disguised as a group dance, wherein the instigators put their arms around each other's shoulders and dance in a circle in the full knowledge that other innocent dancers will join the melee and knock the living daylights out of everyone else on the floor. Quite often perpetrated at birthday parties and wedding receptions where the intended victims are trapped inside the circle. Similar to a Coolafunshoge (q.v.), but with malice aforethought.
A willful act of violence disguised as a group dance, wherein the instigators put their arms around each other's shoulders and dance in a circle in the full knowledge that other innocent dancers will join the melee and knock the living daylights out of everyone else on the floor. Quite often perpetrated at birthday parties and wedding receptions where the intended victims are trapped inside the circle. Similar to a Coolafunshoge (q.v.), but with malice aforethought.
Wicklow-centric Meaning of Liff definitions #11
Coolafunshoge (n.)
A Coolafancy (q.v.) that catches on and causes the floor to be filled with drunken clodhoppers. Most popular amongst hen parties and victorious football players or supporters.
A Coolafancy (q.v.) that catches on and causes the floor to be filled with drunken clodhoppers. Most popular amongst hen parties and victorious football players or supporters.
Wicklow-centric Meaning of Liff definitions #9
Seskin (n.)
An ill-fitting, tonsure-effect, novelty wig worn by inebriated revelers at Halloween parties and, inexplicably, occasional county GAA games.
An ill-fitting, tonsure-effect, novelty wig worn by inebriated revelers at Halloween parties and, inexplicably, occasional county GAA games.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Wicklow-centric Meaning of Liff definitions #8
Knockeen (n.)
A parochial begrudger who sneers at other diners who choose to use chopsticks in a Chinese restaurant.
A parochial begrudger who sneers at other diners who choose to use chopsticks in a Chinese restaurant.
Wicklow-centric Meaning of Liff definitions #7
Tomacork (n.)
A particularly blunt and useless hatchet.
A particularly blunt and useless hatchet.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Don't just refactor your code; refactor your learned behaviours too.
I have been contracting at a Dublin software firm for a few weeks now, and I've noticed that some database names have a mysterious number 102 in them. The core set of databases is deployed for each customer, and differentiated by customer name. The entire set of databases for each customer would be something like:
I asked my colleagues the significance of this number and was told it was version 1.02 of the Qaz databases.
The thing is, there exist no version 101s, 103s or even 100s, neither in production nor in any other environment. In fact, every time one of these 'Qaz' databases occurs, the 102 is blindly included in the name.
I asked if the '102' was strictly necessary and the entire team looked at each other and shrugged. I then asked if we would ever deploy different versions of the QAZ databases for the same customer and was told, no, that would never happen. I then asked how long the 102 had been in the names and none of them knew. It predated them all, and the dev manager.
Since my current task involves deploying the databases for a new customer, I asked if I could omit the 102 from the QAZ database names. Now they all looked at each other and looked reproachful.
"No, that's the standard," one of them said. "Why do you want to take it out; just because you don't like it?"
"No," I replied. "I want to take it out because it's adding a small amount of unnecessary complexity to the domain."
He raised his eyebrows, said "Wow!" and turned back to his workstation shaking his head.
And that was the end of the conversation.
So now I'm propagating this fallacious learned behaviour and I'm irked; irked enough to write this blog post.
In the same way that code smells accumulate to clutter our code base, bad learned behaviours accumulate to clutter our working practices.
We should refactor the bad smells out of both.
Often.
- AcmeCorporationBlah
- AcmeCorporationBlahBlah
- AcmeCorporationBlahBlahBlah
- AcmeCorporationBlahBlahBlahBlah
- Qaz102AcmeCorporationBlah
- Qaz102AcmeCorporationBlahBlah
- Qaz102AcmeCorporationBlahBlahBlah.
I asked my colleagues the significance of this number and was told it was version 1.02 of the Qaz databases.
The thing is, there exist no version 101s, 103s or even 100s, neither in production nor in any other environment. In fact, every time one of these 'Qaz' databases occurs, the 102 is blindly included in the name.
I asked if the '102' was strictly necessary and the entire team looked at each other and shrugged. I then asked if we would ever deploy different versions of the QAZ databases for the same customer and was told, no, that would never happen. I then asked how long the 102 had been in the names and none of them knew. It predated them all, and the dev manager.
Since my current task involves deploying the databases for a new customer, I asked if I could omit the 102 from the QAZ database names. Now they all looked at each other and looked reproachful.
"No, that's the standard," one of them said. "Why do you want to take it out; just because you don't like it?"
"No," I replied. "I want to take it out because it's adding a small amount of unnecessary complexity to the domain."
He raised his eyebrows, said "Wow!" and turned back to his workstation shaking his head.
And that was the end of the conversation.
So now I'm propagating this fallacious learned behaviour and I'm irked; irked enough to write this blog post.
In the same way that code smells accumulate to clutter our code base, bad learned behaviours accumulate to clutter our working practices.
We should refactor the bad smells out of both.
Often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)