What are the characteristics of a bad software engineer?
Categories: Software
2) The I-am-not-a-analyzer: I don't have to test the code, that is the occupation of the analyzers. I don't believe that even in that frame of mind of mature Dexterous philosophies, this demeanor has disappeared. There is as yet an idleness against testing their code. Some portion of it comes from without the interest to set up a testing climate and mostly from absence of intelligible information on testing. (Is it likewise mostly because of an implicit shame against analyzers in the engineer local area.)
3) The I-disdain documentation: Certain individuals accept that code documentation should be lovely and consequently they miss the mark on ability to make it happen, thus not their work. As I would see it, these are the #1 enemies of practical programming. Great programming isn't programming that gives 1,000,000 cool elements. Great programming is one that has a couple of good highlights that are utilized reliably by many individuals and read/refreshed/changed by 1,000. This brand of engineers who accepts less in specialized correspondence and exact and point by point documentation is the best weed to an organization's prosperity.
4) The appalling: My code works, however:
This is the most irritating thing for me by and by. It's not the issue that the code is awful. It might actually be the best piece of code composed. Be that as it may, on the off chance that a jewel neckband is covered in the trash of the Titanic, no one will track down it, and no one will need to clean it, wear it, use it.
5) The momentary financial backer: He codes. He conveys. He continues on. No endeavor to become familiar with the issue. No interest in the area. Simply provide this person with a piece of code, he will trudge on it for the time being and hand it over. You got a fix/working programming. Nothing more accomplished from it. Now and again, you actually must have specific childishness in the designer, one who thinks often about the cutoff time, yet in addition thinks often about what he/she got to gain from it.
6) The nonconformist: "I didn't do this". "This looks awful". "Not my issue to worry about". "This isn't connected truly to my fix, however somebody way around there committed an error". "I disdain this (circle this sentence 10 times each day)", "I can't fix this, get the individual who made this code to fix it".
7) The despot: take it or leave it is their witticism. It's their "thoughts" versus" "your thoughts", not "project thoughts". It's their answer versus your answer. I bet there will be a contention without a doubt. Some way or another they will hold returning to a piece of code that you executed. It some way or another distresses them regardless of whether it works, tests, and looks totally fine. This individual is a major bottleneck to efficiency and will be the main individual to disintegrate under tension and begin pointing fingers. This individual isn't really great for the group, but experienced/great an engineer he might be.
8) The overcautious: The Java designer who just froze when he discovered that he would need to compose a Python script. The engineer who overreacted on discovering that something in the library needs evolving. The engineer who recoils at contributing things in the data set. These individuals will successfully try not to escape their usual range of familiarity. They have bizarre notions connected with contacting specific pieces of the framework. I have learned, from individual experience, that this peculiarity is normal with new designers. Great designers show a propensity to gradually/quickly move out of their usual range of familiarity in investigation.
9) The thoughtless: Neglects to take a reinforcement, previews, has various working catalogs of code, forgets about framework, prints underway code, and so on. Once more, this is a novice propensity and gets better with more expert openness.
10) The apathetic pseudo-programmer: They pride themselves at having the option to fool the framework into working. They track down otherworldly answers for apparently complex issues. My experience says that 9 out of multiple times, it's simply a veneer. The hack is terrible and will crash at some point or another and will cost considerably more than managing it, with additional time at this mome