Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekchips!snowbird!rjn
From: rjn@crl.labs.tek.com
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Code inspections
Keywords: inspection, software engineering
Message-ID: <7362@tekchips.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 28 Jan 91 23:10:17 GMT
References: <14964@megatest.UUCP> <40530@genrad.UUCP>
Sender: news@tekchips.LABS.TEK.COM
Reply-To: rjn@crl.labs.tek.com (Jim Nusbaum)
Lines: 56

In article <14964@megatest.UUCP>, pat@megatest.UUCP (Patrick Powers)
writes:
>Not only that, but your average programmer was very likely attracted to
>programming in order to avoid social interaction and to create
>something under his/her personal control without anyone else watching.
>He/she is likely to be on the low end of the social tact scale and
>singularly unqualified to deal with this delicate situation.  Again,
>this may very well have attracted them to programming: it doesn't
>matter whether anyone likes their personality, all that counts is
>whether the program works.

I think this is really ridiculous.  Pigeonholing the "average" programmer
as some unprofessional, nerd-dweeb is a little out there.  If a person is
unable to perform professionally because of social/emotional problems
then perhaps they are in the wrong profession.  I don't think this describes
today's "average" programmer at all.

In article <40530@genrad.UUCP>, mas@genrad.com (Mark A. Swanson) writes:
> In practice we have not found programmer's egos to be a major problem
> to properly conducted Code Inspections.  This, of course, assumes that
> the Inspection process is actually following the defined cookbook approach,
> complete with moderator who keeps the discussion on track and non personal
> and a seperate reader who actually goes through the code (or design document:
> Inspections work well for them as well) one piece at a time. In addition, it
> is absolutely forbidden for someone's manager to help inspect his product or
> to use the # of defects found by an inspection as part of performance rating.
> 

I just don't see this as being realistic.  What other job where a product
(software in this case) is produced do you find people not being judged on
the quality of their output?  People absolutely have to be judged on how well
they perform their jobs and if putting out high quality software is their
job then their manager should be able to measure their job performance and
react accordingly.

I find the attitude expressed in the above two postings very disturbing.  They
seem to imply that people involved in software production somehow need to be
treated very differently from people involved in other types of production.
You aren't allowed to measure their work, you can't judge their work, you
can't evaluate their job performance based on their work.  This kind of
thinking is what is keeping software from becoming a true engineering
discipline and it is why so much software is so bad.  Programmers need to
realize that their job is producing high quality software, not just a
program that "works".  They need to be held accountable for their work.
I have found that true professionals don't mind code inspections and
walkthroughs, because they are confident in their ability and proud of
their work.


Disclaimer: This is my opinion only.  Tektronix may not share my opinion.


Jim Nusbaum, Computer Research Lab, Tektronix, Inc.  
[ucbvax,decvax,allegra,uw-beaver,hplabs]!tektronix!crl!rjn
rjn@crl.labs.tek.com
(503) 627-4612