A generic coworker WTF



  • @jetcitywoman said:

    Heh, sure!  I didn't mean to imply that I've never just read through the code.  You obviously need to do that in order to decide/guess where to set your breakpoint.  Or if you're old enough ;-)  where to put print statements for debugging purposes.  But in this case, I could tell she was way in over her head.  It might have been a language barrier though.  English wasn't her first language, and this WAS Cobol...  Which is another challenge in and of itself.

     <hijack> I'm pretty young, and I'm not alone amongst my peers in using logging over an interactive debugger almost all the time.  :shrug </hijack> 



  • Back to the original complaint, another example from yesterday.  Our normal procedure is to name the print queues on a computer with the computer's name.  So for example CPUA will have a primary print queue called CPUA_PRINT.  We've done this for years for all of our customers.  I'm tech lead on a project to upgrade a customer's hardware.  Since the new computer is on the same network to minimize downtime, it gets a different name, say CPU1.  So we named it's primary print queue CPU1_PRINT.   Logical?  (The platform is not Windows or Linux, so we don't have network printers, they're all local to the one machine, thus the naming convention.)

    Apparently brain-dead DBA is working on migrating the database to the new machine, and in the process she needs to test all the reports.  She sent me email saying that the reports are being sent to CPUA_PRINT which doesn't exist on the new machine and can I please create it for her.    I checked, just to make sure, and saw the print queue was there as CPU1_PRINT.  I replied to tell her this and told her to change the reports to go to CPU1_PRINT.  Her answer:  Ok.

    At least she was amenable to that.  But given that she's worked for this company longer than I have, I'm simply astounded that she could neither identify the print queue based on our long-used naming scheme, nor that she could figure it out logically.

    Or am I really a super-genious of mad-scientist proportions who makes leaps of logic and understanding beyond mere mortal humans?  *sheesh*



  • @jetcitywoman said:

    Or am I really a super-genious of mad-scientist proportions who makes leaps of logic and understanding beyond mere mortal humans?  *sheesh*

    Yes. 



  • HAhaha!!  Then I'm grossly underpaid.  :-D



  • I have performed amusement.

    Will you enter my bed now? 



  • Ohh, cool, it's been a while since my last anonymous internet pickup attempt.  :-D  Is it ok if I'm 63, balding, and have a slight paunch?  How about if I let you read to me from Kernigan and Richie while we "do it"?



  • @jetcitywoman said:

    Ohh, cool, it's been a while since my last anonymous internet pickup attempt.  :-D  Is it ok if I'm 63, balding, and have a *slight* paunch?  How about if I let you read to me from Kernigan and Richie while we "do it"?

    There are means to cover that problem. 



  • Goddamnit, now I spent the past hour reading about beer and Guinness.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @jetcitywoman said:

    When I tried to clue him in that the actual device names weren't the same as the examples in the manual, he got annoyed and said he wanted to do it "his way".

    Heh...this reminds me of trying to help my son do something.


Log in to reply