<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Frustrated by a coworker ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-24T17:24:45-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I do believe]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3271430]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[you meant Zombie Alert?  ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3271430]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[boxfiddler]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:32:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Jack]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3271266]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You go off half-cocked. And, I think, your use of &quot;troll&quot; sucks.I found it thoughtful; useful; engaging. I would welcome more. Not, less.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3271266]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[santeewelding]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:30:43 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Troll alert]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3271263]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Feb 2009!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3271263]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JackOfAllTech]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:16:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The best technique, the best language,the best computer, the best car]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3271080]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[JKameleon alludes to an important aspect, as have others.  There is no best technique for all situations and assignments, any more than there is a best computer language for coding, a best platform for every task, or a best car for everyone.  There are, however, some sub-optimum ways for you to address your co-worker and your concerns, several of which have also been pointed out, the worst of which center around building the conflict instead of building the relationship.  This is why smart managers pay attention to their employees' people skills, and how the relationships are going in the shop.  Having played all three roles in this conflict many times in several shops, my advice is like many others above.  You won't get this guy to listen to you until he respects you.  He won't respect you until you respect him, and until he can see that you do.  You won't be able to deliver what you want to say in a way to which he will be receptive until you get to where you can also hear those parts of what he is saying which are valuable.  And if you don't think he has anything valuable to say, you probably need to step back a bit and listen a bit more.  As soon as you can do that, the other problem will actually be pretty easy to solve.  If he has been in the business long enough to become any kind of a veteran programmer at all, he did learn somewhere along the way how to learn ways to simplify what he does.  As an example, that Step Out thing.  He probably didn't know about it.  He probably would love to use it once he understood it.  Presenting it to him as, &quot;Yeah, I know that finding the problem takes going down into the levels, which is why I am glad I can use the Step Out function once I've located the problem&quot; is a lot more likely to work than something like, &quot;Yeah, but if you were a competent debugger you would know how to use the Step Out function.&quot;  Establish your similarities, and then use that as a bridge to get over your differences.And yes, this takes work and effort on your part.  That's part of the personal cost of getting to work on a team, rather than in a single person shop.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3271080]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[gardoglee]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 10:51:59 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[As an old-timer ...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3256981]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I started programming as a full time job in 1978 so I can fully sympathise with the old timer. My biggest problem in getting to grips with classes, methods, etc. is TIME. I work in an environment where there is rarely time to fully document my work, let alone learn new techniques. If I won the lottery, I would take a degree in computer science, just to get the full story from (presumably) those with the expertise. I took over my present job from a predecessor who was heavily into modern programming techniques. The big problem was not the techniques but the way they were used. I found his programs incomprehensible. There was one program he had written that I had to seriously modify to deliver to a client 2 weeks later and it had to be reliable. My boss explicitly told me not to rewrite it but I knew that if I didn't rewrite it, it would be unreliable. So I rewrote it, admittedly using old-timer techniques, and the result was a reliable working program. I am fortunate in that I am the sole programmer in the department so I can use whatever techniques I am happy with, providing I deliver a program that works and is easy to use. I have been working with my present employer for over 10 years so I must be doing something right!In my experience, a good programmer can use any techniques and produce a program that is efficient and comprehensible to other programmers. A bad programmer using the latest techniques can still produce a dog's breakfast of a program that is what I call a &quot;write only&quot; program because it is incomprehensible to other programmers. My first few programming years were working in assembly language with very tight space constraints, so my experience spans a very wide range. One thing I don't do is take offence when a modern programmer criticises me for using old-timer techniques because I understand that he has a different viewpoint. I don't know how sensitive the old-timer in question is, but he may be willing to listen to a clear explanation of why more modern techniques are preferable.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3256981]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JohnOfStony]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:49:29 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[This can't be dealt with on personal level]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3221871]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's not just annoying coworker thing, it runs far deeper. You've mentioned ASP.NET. That means web applications, which are, in essence, procedural. HTTP call invokes a method/procedure on server in stateless manner. This procedure typically has to acquire a state from a database. When translating data from database into objects you have to deal with something called &quot;The Vietnam of Computer Science&quot;. With procedural approach, you don't have such problems. I have 10+ years of experience in procedural (various assemblers, C) as well as 10+ years of OOP (C++, C#). I'm familiar with both approaches, and adherent to none of them. There are situations, where OOP is better (typically UI intensive desktop apps), and situations where procedural approach is still sometimes better (stateless database intensive server apps, for example). Solution? In the final consequence, everything amounts to man hours and money. If your organization has well established development process based on procedural approach, the cost of swithcing to OOP might simply not be worth a fuss.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3221871]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jkameleon@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 15:11:43 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[How on earth did you make that change so quickly?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3221811]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This question motivated co-workers to look at Structured Programming and its benefits circa 1973. Unless you can demonstrate practical benefits you may be guilty of pushing the latest fad! I have seen quite a few... as you may have gathered. ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3221811]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[philr@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:46:05 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[DEC BASIC - Compiled And Interpreted]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3205272]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I recall using BASIC on an RT-11 O/S PDP11. That BASIC could be &quot;compiled&quot; or directly interpreted. From what I remember the compiled version of the BASIC code - with a different filetype for its results - was still run by the BASIC interpreter, it just didn't have to do any of the line-by-line high-level lexical and syntactical analysis, and probably had all the necessary storage already allocated within the pre-defined memory space. It certainly ran a lot faster than the fully interpreted source file version of the same BASIC programs.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3205272]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[doug.cronshaw@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:54:47 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[OOP design principle]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3177777]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You're right.  It's important to keep classes small and focused.  Do one thing well, and then the interface becomes natural and doesn't need to be redesigned.  Compose more complex architectures by combining instances of these simple classes, rather than creating complex inheritance hierarchies with ungodly dependencies.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3177777]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 09:11:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Still, with OOP testing is more managable.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3177506]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[All my applications have been better for the OOP because I do the encapsulation right. If you really need to do that much debugging into the existing object model, then it wasn't done right in the first place. It either didn't encapsulate or it wasn't tested adequately. The bathwater might be dirty, but don't get rid of the baby too.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3177506]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mattohare@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:43:35 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You really can't change interfaces]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3177003]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[in the OOP model.  You can only add new ones.  Then, of course, the sheer number of interfaces becomes unmanageable.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3177003]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:25:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[OOP and impact analysis]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3176659]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Slightly off the thread but there is some merit in not using OOP, though usually the pluses outweigh the minuses.  My big bugbear is maintenance.  OOP is great for *building* an app, but its a nightmare when you have to change it.  And by change it I mean the interfaces have to change.  How do you find out all those things which use your web service which are now going to fall in a heap?  When someone cracks this one, then they are going to make a fortune.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3176659]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[StephenInScotland]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:50:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Get another job...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3176287]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You have to think about your future and learning obsolete skills and methods is counter to this imperative.  Work somewhere where you will cultivate your skills and remain relevant.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3176287]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[software-guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:05:20 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Stone Age:  Really high tech for then...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3064538]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I started coding in Fortran in the mid-60's.   By the 70's I was also coding in COBOL (quite a bit) and IBM's proprietary language RPG-I.Now I am in my mid-sixties and am leaving both VB.NET, RPG and COBOL behind.  Firmly on C# (I love it!).   Everything in retrospect is primitive-looking.Just think, in the 1840's people were wondering what steam power (boats and trains) was doing to a sense of time and space.  The telegraph was rapidly set up and adopted by the newspapers.Read &quot;What Hath God wrought&quot; a pulitzer-Prize winning recounting of this era.  And that was technology too!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3064538]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[johndecoville]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:22:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[How were the acoustics?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3063618]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Not too bad actually.  We were &quot;inside&quot; of course, and there was a nice rumbling underfoot.   ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3063618]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[KSoniat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 06:05:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Romance. *chuckle*]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3063483]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My partner's European, so he can live anywhere in the EU. We can live together in any of the countries (UK incluced) that recognise our partnership. So, here we are.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3063483]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mattohare@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:39:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Wow, I wish I had seen that]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3063267]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Since I work from my home, I only travel to Seattle once every few months.  How were the acoustics?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3063267]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:27:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Orchestra]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3062377]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The &quot;summer&quot; orchestra was smaller - but yep the whole thing!!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3062377]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[KSoniat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:01:09 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Everything is an object, except when it isn't]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3062328]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Reg explains it best:  http://weblog.raganwald.com/2008/02/turtles-all-way-down-please.html]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3062328]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:25:35 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What could have dragged you from here?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3062324]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[.. and deposited you in Belfast?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-300695-3062324]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Sterling "chip" Camden]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:17:46 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

