Iteration 1 Reflection

| 1 Comment

Working on Iteration 1 of the CSCI 3081 project was an interesting change from most of the other programming projects i have worked on. For one, there is many more files and much more code going into this project then I am used to.Nearing 1000 lines of code in more than one file can originally seem daunting and that is why me and my partner took much more time trying to organize our code and make our writing more efficient to reduce the sheer size of the files we were creating. Prior to this assignment it was never necessary to take time to preemptively plan the structure of our code, however in this case it was a much needed exercise. This was one part of our coding process that worked very well for us in this iteration and saved us a considerable amount of space, and probably a great amount of time as well.
Another interesting part of this Iteration was the fact that we were working in pairs. It introduced a new dynamic to the coding experience. You could not simply sit down and start writing as you could in many other assignments prior to this, but instead you had to verify what you would be doing with your partner and agree on a method that you were going to use. It was difficult writing pieces of code that were interdependent with code that your partner was going to write, since you had to figure out his exact implementation in order for your pieces to work together. Subversion was very helpful in solving this problem, however, since it was simple to run an update command and see exactly what your partner has been working on. (assuming he is committing his work regularly) Having a partner can also lead to some hindrance if both of you want to implement a part in a different way. That is another reason the pre-planning phase of the process worked very well for us, since we could decide on a specific implementation beforehand and there would be no conflicting interests while the code was being written.
Overall the first Iteration of the project went considerably smoothly. I will continue to use the development practice of preemptive planning because it worked so well on the first iteration. The only thing that my partner and I may change for the second iteration is working together more often, since most of the work on the first iteration was done independently. I feel like working in the same room a little bit more may have expedited the process a little more. Also, we did not utilize helper functions very well. Much of the functionality of our scanner is just hard coded into the scan() function. To clean up the code, we will probably go back and introduce some helper functions on the iteration 1 code and continue using them throughout the rest of the project.

Recent Comments

  • esan0001: A solid plan that both team members agree on is read more

Recent Entries

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.