Thud, Thud, Thud (Redux)

[billroper]

So there's a fellow rearranging the project files at work. Now the way that Visual Studio works, you've got a global directory include path that you use for finding all of the libraries that are external to your project. You've also got project-specific include paths that affect only the project that you're working on.

I am now embroiled in a knock-down, drag-out argument as I try to explain why includes that are specific to the project that you're working on need to go in the project-specific include paths rather than in the global include path, since if you put them in the global include path they will affect other projects that may not want the benefit of your wisdom about what needs to be included. Yes, you have to put this information into each of the project files, but once you do put it in there, it doesn't just vanish. It's persistent, so you don't have to keep updating it.

The counter-argument appears to be "If I put it in the global settings, I only have to type it once."

Which is true.

Save for the fact that you've done it to all of the projects, whether they wanted your change or not.

*sigh*

It strikes me that the counter-argument is neither strong, nor correct.

Am I missing something here?

Comments

[it-aint-easy.livejournal.com]

It sounds to me like you're right. The only justification I can imagine is if there is some huge number of projects that would need to be modified. Even then, it's more of an hold-your-nose-and-eat-it shortcut, rather than the actual correct answer.

[starmalachite.livejournal.com]

So there's a fellow rearranging the project files at work.

That sentence *never* leads to anything good.

[also-huey.livejournal.com]

The sentence "Death is too good for him" leaps immediately to mind, yes.

Somebody at my job has been jerking with my project files. I have since identified them, and made it clear that This Is Really Uncool, with a subtle flavor of Stop That, Or I Will Kill You With Your Own LCD Panel.

[tesral.livejournal.com]

Dude that is an uncool thing to do to a good LCD panel.

Depends ...

[celebrith.livejournal.com]

The way prices are going down, maybe then Huey can get a bigger, faster LCD panel (and give his old one to the replacement for the person who is no longer with us).

[tesral.livejournal.com]

I think the part you are missing is not a part you are missing. It is the part HE is missing. A mark One bioware computer, IE "brain".

He is in hos own little world where his needs are the only ones that matter.

[jennlk]

The counter-argument appears to be "If I put it in the global settings, I only have to type it once."

Well, yes. Except for all the projects where you have to change it back.

Which outnumber the ones where you do want the change, because otherwise you (being smarter-than-the-average-bear) would have put it into the global settings already.

[tarkrai.livejournal.com]

This is the argument that immediately occurred to me as well.

He has n projects. The number of projects equals n+y, where y is a significantly larger number of projects than his (due to the number of people working on them).

So, yes, it is easier for *him* to make one update, but he would be making *more* work for *more* people correcting their directory structures to match his desires, if I've read the implications correctly.

As for many things, what is the most efficient for one person is not necessarily the most efficient for the team. Suck it up.

Unless his name is Spock, the needs of the many still outweigh the needs of the one.

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

I see that this post's counterarguement has a lot in common with the counterarguement in your previous post:

She said, "But then I have to press a button."

Although, the current one will probably have to be opposed much more vigorously.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

Cut and paste is an amazing way to cut down on typing.

But, seriously, how hard can it be to type?

[billroper]

Since the sum total of the required typing to do this is to enter "$(SolutionDir)" once per project, it's not that hard. I've done a lot more complex directory maintenance more than once.

[rinioth.livejournal.com]

Don't you have formal company coding standards that he should be abiding by which state your point of view? Because if you don't then you really should have.

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from

[scarfman]

This. Or there ought to be a superior (his, not necessarily yours) you can appeal to, if this guy won't listen.

Isn't there a practical example you can give him? Like, "Suppose my project has a directory called Interest Calculation with a function called Rate. Suppose someone else's project has a directory called Interest Calculation with a function called Rate - only it's a different rate?" [Modify with corrections for such Visual Basic terminology as I've mishmashed, and according to the needs of the apparent intelligence of the guy doing the modifying]

[kizoku42.livejournal.com]

I suppose the next question is, "does it hurt any of the projects that don't need it?" Does it slow down the compile, interfere with something they're doing, or any other bad thing? Maybe just confusing, because now someone fixing a bug won't know if they need to check them or not? -Personally- I favor minimal code.

[billroper]

It sends the search path for their includes down a direction that they don't necessarily want to go. At best, it will slow down the compile. At worst, you might include the wrong files.

Because it affects everything that ever compiles in Visual Studio, the effects become somewhat unpredictable.

By putting the include path for these projects into the projects, you guarantee that anyone who pulls these projects to compile automatically gets the right include path. So you actually reduce the amount of manual intervention required for everyone else.

What comes to my mind ...

[celebrith.livejournal.com]

... "Stupidity is its own reward".

So, I'm guessing this fellow has been promoted above the level of his incompetence? That's usually self-correcting. He puts in the change into the globals. Projects all over the globe tank. He gets (hopefully) fired, or at least demoted. Someone who understands software goes back and takes his changes out.