---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id ACC02D2F0116; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:17:20 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <12.00CC3CB8@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:17:08 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 8563 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:17:02 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 3556; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:16:08 -0500 Received: from extsmtp2.localnet.com [207.251.201.58] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with SMTP ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:16:07 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by extsmtp2.localnet.com Received: (qmail 21873 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2004 03:15:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp2.localnet.com) (10.0.7.15) by extsmtp2.localnet.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2004 03:15:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 17870 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2004 03:16:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kmp) (66.153.101.215) by mail1.localnet.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2004 03:16:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:16:10 -0500 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Ken Pergola Subject: Re: [PIC:] Process To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <401A3ECE.5681.12401A9@localhost> Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856417 Steve Baldwin wrote: > I guess you didn't read the rest of the paragraph where I described my > own method for a one person code review. Simply reviewing your own > code is like reading your own text for spelling and gramatical errors. > Unless you have some means of distancing youself from the original > work, you'll just read what you expect to be there, rather than > picking up errors. Hi Steve, Yes, I read your entire post, and I respectfully disagree that reviewing your own code has no merit in finding errors (if that is indeed your stance). The broad point I was trying to make is if you are in a situation where you are the *only* coder, reviewing your own code (especially before release) is a much better option than not reviewing your code at all. But if I follow your argument, are you saying that you *never* found any errors in your code by simply reviewing your code? Sometimes it may be minutes, hours, or weeks (or longer) before I re-read some of my code, but many times I have spotted problems (or better ways of doing something) because I simply reviewed it again. I'm not trying to start an argument with you and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your stance -- this has been a fascinating and interesting thread. It just shows how different (and similar) we all are in our methodologies. Take care Steve, Ken Pergola -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. .