Comments on: Never Send a Human To Do a Robot's Job http://tleaves.com/2004/09/08/never-send-a-human-to-do-a-robots-job/ Creativity x Technology Sat, 17 Mar 2012 05:09:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Roshan http://tleaves.com/2004/09/08/never-send-a-human-to-do-a-robots-job/comment-page-1/#comment-586 Roshan Mon, 27 Sep 2004 07:21:08 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=186#comment-586 If there is not tool immediately in sight and it is still manual labour - try and automate. I possibly can't say enough of this people. It super handy to know a good scripting language to take care of automation for you. If there is not tool immediately in sight and it is still manual labour – try and automate. I possibly can’t say enough of this people.

It super handy to know a good scripting language to take care of automation for you.

]]> By: KF http://tleaves.com/2004/09/08/never-send-a-human-to-do-a-robots-job/comment-page-1/#comment-585 KF Wed, 22 Sep 2004 12:39:12 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=186#comment-585 I work primarily in web design, and someone sent me the link to this because they knew how frustrated I get with people who proclaim, "I wrote my entire site in Notepad!" Sure, it's important to know what's going on behind the scenes, but for the most part, I totally agree: Let the tool do the grunt work! I work primarily in web design, and someone sent me the link to this because they knew how frustrated I get with people who proclaim, “I wrote my entire site in Notepad!” Sure, it’s important to know what’s going on behind the scenes, but for the most part, I totally agree: Let the tool do the grunt work!

]]> By: Dominic Cronin http://tleaves.com/2004/09/08/never-send-a-human-to-do-a-robots-job/comment-page-1/#comment-584 Dominic Cronin Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:04:23 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=186#comment-584 Indeed - don't forget the middle ground for tasks that only need doing rarely, i.e. making use of some generic tool such as a spreadsheet or a macro in your IDE to do the donkey work. Indeed – don’t forget the middle ground for tasks that only need doing rarely, i.e. making use of some generic tool such as a spreadsheet or a macro in your IDE to do the donkey work.

]]> By: Andy Streich http://tleaves.com/2004/09/08/never-send-a-human-to-do-a-robots-job/comment-page-1/#comment-583 Andy Streich Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:34:43 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=186#comment-583 I agree with the general sentiment. I have also seen it taken to silly extremes when someone says "I can build a tool to do that" without any realistic notion of the effort it will take to write and VALIDATE and MAINTAIN (and god-forbid document) the tool compared to the return, especially under time pressure. Like any investment, tool creation/purchasing must be weighed against it's benefits. I agree with the general sentiment. I have also seen it taken to silly extremes when someone says “I can build a tool to do that” without any realistic notion of the effort it will take to write and VALIDATE and MAINTAIN (and god-forbid document) the tool compared to the return, especially under time pressure. Like any investment, tool creation/purchasing must be weighed against it’s benefits.

]]> By: Neopoleon.com http://tleaves.com/2004/09/08/never-send-a-human-to-do-a-robots-job/comment-page-1/#comment-587 Neopoleon.com Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:26:13 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=186#comment-587 <strong>Redmond and Olympia bound</strong> Redmond and Olympia bound

]]> By: Tom Moertel http://tleaves.com/2004/09/08/never-send-a-human-to-do-a-robots-job/comment-page-1/#comment-582 Tom Moertel Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:20:50 +0000 http://tleaves.com/?p=186#comment-582 How's this for a funny coincidence: One of my current pet projects is an automatic, specification-based testing system whose mascot is a robot. Yesterday, the very same day you wrote, "Never send a human to do a robot's job," I was giving a talk about the system and nearly shouting, "Let the machine write your tests!" One of my other pet projects is a shorthand for XML that writes most of the syntactical noise for you. So, I would guess we are in agreement. Why write code that you can more sensibly write code to write for you? How’s this for a funny coincidence: One of my current pet projects is an automatic, specification-based testing system whose mascot is a robot. Yesterday, the very same day you wrote, “Never send a human to do a robot’s job,” I was giving a talk about the system and nearly shouting, “Let the machine write your tests!”

One of my other pet projects is a shorthand for XML that writes most of the syntactical noise for you.

So, I would guess we are in agreement. Why write code that you can more sensibly write code to write for you?

]]>