Re: Rework [Was: Static vs. Dynamic typing...]
From: Alan Balmer (albalmer_at_att.net)
Date: 07/16/04
- Next message: Dan Tex1: "Re: Programming "efficiently" on given hardware - what does it mean"
- Previous message: Jeff Brooks: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming:"
- In reply to: Phlip: "Re: Rework [Was: Static vs. Dynamic typing...]"
- Next in thread: Phlip: "Re: Rework [Was: Static vs. Dynamic typing...]"
- Reply: Phlip: "Re: Rework [Was: Static vs. Dynamic typing...]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:47:57 -0700
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 21:38:53 GMT, "Phlip" <phlip_cpp@yahoo.com> wrote:
>If I make a huge change, don't tell anyone about it, check-in, leave the
>codebase so nothing compiles much less tests, and clock out for the day, I
>just put the project at risk, because nobody can support my efforts.
If that happens, you need more effective management of personnel, a
better source management system, or both.
-- Al Balmer Balmer Consulting removebalmerconsultingthis@att.net
- Next message: Dan Tex1: "Re: Programming "efficiently" on given hardware - what does it mean"
- Previous message: Jeff Brooks: "Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming:"
- In reply to: Phlip: "Re: Rework [Was: Static vs. Dynamic typing...]"
- Next in thread: Phlip: "Re: Rework [Was: Static vs. Dynamic typing...]"
- Reply: Phlip: "Re: Rework [Was: Static vs. Dynamic typing...]"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
