Related
In may Daily Job i come across this Dilemma :
"Stable System Vs Better Design"
In routine job when i am fixing some module, When i see bad design
-> Badly written code
-> Badly Written Algorithm
-> Optimization possible
I would prefer to fix these also along with issue i am fixing
But many people opposes my changes a few supports, People who opposes will say
"You should be business oriented if system is stable, If you change some thing may cause regression, Hence do not favor business"
some time :
you will see your own written code after 6 months, Always you will see some improvment opportunity in this
While who support will say:
This is continual improvement and system will be more stable
So i would like to know what you people think
If applicable, write a unit test (or several, to cover edge cases). This gives you the confidence to refactor and know that you haven't broken anything.
Of course, if the code is tightly coupled (or spaghetti!), that's going to be a problem.
If it ain't broken don't fix it - wrap it. Isolate the modules as much as you can without changing its implementation; they should be touched (fixed, improved) when / if a real need arises.
My opinion would be not to fix the old code if it looks not perfect unless the way it is written is interfering with your current task at hand.
Most of the code is written badly. It is a matter of fact. If you're not in a perfect team with the perfect understanding of quality value and the agreement on the approach to achieve and keep this quality level, your optimizations will not change the big picture. You may fix something now but the next guy will make the mess of the things again.
I have came to the conclusion that in this industry if its not broken, don't fix it unless there is a damn good reason to.
If you know the application inside out, or have comprehensive unit tests and time to test the application in a non-productive environment, go for it. Otherwise, do it just when it's necessary.
Both are correct and there is no easy way out.
If you don't fix problems as you encounter them, not all problems will be fixed.
If you break something with a fix that is not 100% related to the issue you're currently working on, then people will hate you.
On the other hand, if you fix some innocent code (or rather code that looks innocent) and it breaks in unexpected ways, you've found something valuable: Brittle code. Brittle code is usually something that no one dares to touch. But to make your product more stable, you must get rid of such code. The first step on this road is to find it.
I have to admit that such fixes cause a lot of "unnecessary" friction in the team. People will yell at you when you touch brittle code because they are afraid. Often, this code will blow into the face of your customers, so you will get heat from all kinds of directions.
So it really depends on how much pain you want to cause and what you're willing to endure. If you fix everything as you encounter it, the code will be better by the end of the year. But it often is worse by the end of the day.
I want to second all the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" answers, but with a relevant link...
Things You Should Never Do, Part 1 - Joel Spolsky
In essence - sometimes that incomprehensible code is actually a necessary bugfix that you have no chance to understand.
On the one hand, changing code that's already more-or-less working can run the risk of breaking things, and it can easily become an all-consuming task.
On the other hand, leaving bad code alone for fear of breaking things can stifle new development, due to the burden of maintaining bad code.
Sometimes code looks bad because it has to deal with complicated corner cases, as Joel Spolsky points out, and rewriting it will create bugs by failing to cover those corner cases. Sometimes code looks bad because it really is bad, and rewriting it can fix bugs that you didn't even know were there. Experience with your code base should help you determine which code is which.
In Boy Scout Check-Ins, Jeff Moser discusses the idea of "always leaving the campground cleaner than you found it." Always leave the codebase cleaner than you found it, even if you can't fix everything; those little improvements add up over time.
As was said in this answer, unit tests are a good thing. Working Effectively with Legacy Code, by Michael Feathers, is a great resource on this topic.
I personally have a tendency to spend time fixing stuff rather than getting on with the required task. Unfortunately it is all too easy to start fixing what looks like an easy problem and unravelling a huge mess that you then wish you hadn't.
I have also worked with people who are the other way round, and can live with the bad bits as long as it gets the job done.
More often than not, you can spend ages 'getting something right' to make it easier to work with in the future and you'll find that code is never reused in the future.
I think the main thing is to have a balance of views on your team, discuss things regularly with others and ultimately, meet the requirements for your project, since it's the customer paying the bills.
Be constructive about any problems you find - don't just pick holes for the sake of it! Team code reviews help improve bad code over time as poor coders will start to understand how to make good code.
I would advise marking bad code with 'TODO' comments and then coming back to fix it later time/budget allows. At least you've got a flag for potential problem areas then, without having to (possibly) waste time on a fix that's not required there and then.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 13 years ago.
Improve this question
We've all been there. You have written some code and unit tests, the tests all pass, and the code is decent (nothing's perfect, right?). Then, someone who is sure that they know better than you comes along and decides to change your code or the interfaces to your code just because he/she does not like the variable/class names that you used. No "real" refactorings, no real optimizations, no real improvement -- just different words -- not necessarily better words, just different.
My real problem with this is that (a) its a waste of time and (b) it shows a blatant disrespect for the fellow developer that wrote the code in the first place.
My visceral response is to lash out, but that's counter productive. Instead, I though that I might wright a paragraph or two as sort of a "Charter" or "Philosophy" that is adopted for the project. I'm wondering if anyone else has tried this, and if so, was it successful?
After looking at the initial comments below (which are appreciated), I think that my problem is primarily that this change broke the build for code that was already working. So time needed to be spent to fix the code for what was (in my opinion) a non value-added change.
-- Thanks
...decides to change your code or the
interfaces to your code just because
he/she does not like the
variable/class names that you used.
My real problem with this is that (a)
its a waste of time and (b) it shows a
blatant disrespect for the fellow
developer that wrote the code in the
first place.
My visceral response is to lash out...
I see some VERY CONCERNING things in those statements.
naming is REALLY, REALLY important. It is worth rewriting code to get it correct.
It is not YOUR code
How is it disrespectful?
You are taking it too personally.
I once worked with someone who freaked out when I made changes to "his" code. His code as horrible; it was buggy and unmaintainable. He was always staying late, fighting fires and breaking things - basically a negative contributor. I rewrote all his bad code for a big piece of functionality for a project one weekend and when he came back in on monday had a hissy fit. I am not saying your stuff is horrible, but maybe you need to calm down and be more objective about it.
Don't take it so personally. Step back and think about it - maybe "your" code needed fixing
We might be able to give better answers if you posted the code and changes, or at least some better idea of the situation with an example or two.
EDIT:
After seeing the code change and finding out that the build was broken, I am going to have to change the tone of this answer. I understand Steve's frustration - and i agree - that is not a good change. It makes a specific typedef more general and not very descriptive any more.
While I think some of my points are valid, in this case it looks like the changes were not appropriate.
The issue of code "ownership" is irrelevant. If the code changes are useless then everyone on the team should not be happy. If they are good changes then everyone should be happy about it. If there is a difference of opinion then you all need to find a common ground.
Breaking the build is not a good thing.
Steve, sorry if I came down harsh - it looks like in this instance you are justified in your frustration, but not because it is "your" code.
One thing that might help in this sort of situation is to require code reviews for all changes. People are less likely to make pointless changes if someone else has to review it first. If they can actually convince another developer that their change should go in then maybe it isn't so pointless after all.
Heey,
Guys! WE all need TO TALK!
Just sit together and TALK! There are always reasons to change and there are always reasons NOT to.
Decide together!
Don't just go to StackOverflow or a forum and say ask this kind of questions.
The new dev does it - he gets responses from community probably positive (yeahh, bad code should be refactored).
The current dev does it - he gets responses from the community too: "What an idiot could do such kind of changes!"
And the result is: Counterproductive, destructive, offensive environment for a long time.
Who wants it?
Just put your arguments on the table and that's it.
New dev needs some introduction too.
Old dev needs to listed TOO.
This should be collaborative work AND not pissing each other off.
Decide together, talk, as THE TEAM.
And... better ask questions like "How is it better to refactor this?"
Cheers.
In any software development team with a size > 1, standardization is key. Not only for each developer to understand the other's code, but so that the people that come along in 2 years, 5 years and 10 years can look at any part of the code and see a clear and consistent pattern. Will you... and the rest of the team... seriously still be there, working on this project, years down the line?
If you both "just have your way of doing things" and there is no formal standard for the project/company, I suggest you work with the team and/or your boss to suggest a formal standard be adopted. There are many standards already published for the various environments that you can use either as the standard, or as a starting point.
If there is a formal standard, everyone on the team is obligated to follow it... no matter how much "better" they think their way is.
So much for the hard skills.
Now on the soft skills side...
You and your colleague need to develop a healthy relationship, or decide to work in different places. Tit-for-tats that result in people feeling that they want to lash out will make everyone unhappy, not to mention gravely jeopardize the project everyone is being paid to complete. Look for a person you both respect (maybe your boss, maybe a respected and level-headed senior member of the team, maybe HR if you have a good HR department). Explain to that person what the problem is and that it makes you feel unvalued and disrespected. Ask for help talking through the situation with your colleague and agreeing to a better way of working together.
Finally, you need to be open to the possibility that your colleague may be making subjectively correct changes, even if the manner he's doing it in offends you. Separate the correct coding from the correct interpersonal interactions. Do the right thing for the project.
Well if that guy is going to maintain your code, let him do whatever he wants to.
Just remember that it is not "your" code. The code belongs to the company for which you work for. You wrote the code and you got paid for it. Let the Management do whatever they want to do with it.
Don't take things personally, move on.
Sometimes, changing names might be justified. It can be confusing if half the project refers to a person's sex, and then you check in some new code that refers to gender or something. Okay, this might be a bad example as technically they are two different things and their meaning is most likely still obvious. But if a project's code uses two different terms to refer to the same concept, it can be confusing.
Usually I try to leave people's code alone, unless I have some justification for refactoring. Luckily the same seems to go for my colleagues, so no, I have not had the need for writing such a charter yet.
How about using an automated build system, so when this person changes the code and breaks something the team will get an alert about it. This solves your problem with having to waste your time fixing something broken by someone elses change to your code. This way everyone will know that so and so made a change and broke the build, and can see for themself. The rule is "dont break the build".
You should be discussing this with the person who did it, in a non-threatening manner.
I believe every developer should take responsibility and hence own some of the code, but not all of the code. I understand the code that I've written better (irrespective of how good/bad it is) than any other guy that has ever seen it. Therefore the changes I make will be faster and less prone to error.
I don't mind anybody changing the code I've written later on, but I have a couple of conditions:
If you change the code and that causes something else to break, you are responsible for fixing it, not me.
If I don't agree with the changes you made I will change it back to the way I want it since I have to take responsibility for this piece of code in future.
Not all developers should be making changes to all the code, all the time. Only some of the time, for the purpose of getting to know the code (sharing knowledge).
I've never worked for an employer that endorses a "everyone can change anything any time" policy. Developers own certain parts of the code and they are asked specifically to make changes/refactor based on a development democracy.
You touch my code and break something, (1) you better have a good reason for the change that all developers agree with and (2) you better not leave broken things broken or ask me to go do the clean-up for you UNLESS you're my superior. I will humbly submit if that's the case.
I agree with Laurence that code reviews might help. This is an issue of how your team should work together. What might help is the notion of Egoless Programming - in a nutshell, considering the code as a joint product of the team, and trying to make decisions for the sake of the code rather than because of the programmer's ego. Your teammate violated the fourth commandment of egoless programming - "Don't rewrite code without consultation."
Maybe if your team is made aware of these principles, things will improve. I would try this.
Perhaps not completely on topic, but .... If you have developers who have the time to make changes to code just because they don't like the variable names used, then maybe the conversation should be about whether you have too many developers and which ones should be shown the door ... or how you're going to justify to management the bloated staff you have, especially in the current economic circumstances!
I recently installed the Eclipse Metrics Plugin and have exported the data for one of our projects.
It's all very good having these nice graphs but I'd really like to understand more in depth what they all mean. The definitions of the metrics only go so far to telling you what it really means.
Does anyone know of any good resources, books, websites, etc, that can help me better understand what all the data means and give an understanding of how to improve the code where necessary?
I'm interested in things like Efferent Coupling, and Cyclomatic Complexity, etc, rather than lines of code or lines per method.
I don't think that code metrics (sometimes referred to as software metrics) provide valuable data in terms of where you can improve.
With code metrics it is sort of nice to see how much code you write in an hour etc., but beyond they tell you nada about the quality of the code written, its documentation and code coverage. They are pretty much a week attempt to measure where you cannot really measure.
Code metrics also discriminate the programmers who solve the harder problems because they obviously managed to code less. Yet they solved the hard issues and a junior programmer whipping out lots of crap code looks good.
Another example for using metrics is the very popular Ohloh. They employ metrics to put a price tag on an opensource project (using number of lines, etc.), which in itself is an attempt which is flawed as hell - as you can imagine.
Having said all that the Wikipedia entry provides some overall insight on the topic, sorry to not answer your question in a more supportive way with a really great website or book, but I bet you got the drift that I am not a huge fan. :)
Something to employ to help you improve would be continuous integration and adhering to some sort of standard when it comes to code, documentation and so on. That is how you can improve. Metrics are just eye candy for meetings - "look we coded that much already".
Update
Ok, well my point being efferent coupling or even cyclomatic complexity can indicate something is wrong - it doesn't have to be wrong though. It can be an indicator to refactor a class but there is no rule of thumb that tells you when.
IMHO a rule such as 500+ lines of code, refactor or the DRY principal are more applicable in most cases. Sometimes it's as simple as that.
I give you that much that since cyclomatic complexity is graphed into a flow chart, it can be an eye opener. But again, use carefully.
In my opinion metrics are an excellent way to find pain points in your codebase. They are very useful also to show your manager why you should spend time improving it.
This is a post I wrote about it: http://blog.jorgef.net/2011/12/metrics-in-brownfield-applications.html
I hope it helps
On occasion I've heard people discuss the benefits of keeping track of programming mistakes, if for no other reason than it increases awareness of common errors. I've started to keep a list of bugs that I find in my code, along with what could have led to them. The main question I have is this:
What information related to my mistakes should I be keeping
track of so that I can improve as a
programmer?
And a couple other questions related to this:
How do I use this information once I start logging my mistakes?
Is tracking mistakes truly beneficial?
This is only useful if you are actually vigilant with tracking and reviewing. When I was working on a team, no matter how much documented that for example our servers in the production environment were natted and would not be able to resolve their own domain names or public IP addresses, every 6 months, I'd get a call at 4 AM from the deployment team or dev team that a new developer was responsible for, and they either forgot or were unaware.
I remember a particular engineer who was repsonsible for deploying and he had paper checklists, we built him deployment tools that forced him to record his checklist, yet he would always forgot to set the connection string (resulting in the 4 am phone call). Point is it's only worth it if your going to use it vigilantly.
I've found the best way to use this is by implementing your rules into a code analyzer like fxcop.
I think what is more useful than keeping a log of individual mistakes is making sure you come away with a real understanding of why it was a mistake in the first place. Most mistakes stem from a lack of understanding about one thing or another, correct that understanding and you eliminate an entire set of potential mistakes in the future. If I would log anything it would be what I learned from the experience that I didn't know before, not the specifics of the mistake that was made which is likely to be of limited usefulness when you look back at it later.
what was the mistake
how can it be avoided
add the latter to an appropriate checklist, and refer to it as often as appropriate
I think tracking mistakes can be worthwhile, but in my experience it helps a lot to categorize them at some level.
Every programmer is going to make enough mistakes over the course of their career to fill an encyclopaedia. If you make a huge checklist out of all of them then you're never going to get any coding done because you'll eventually be spending all of your time going over your checklist. So: categorize your mistakes in some way that makes sense to you so you can rifle through your list looking at the most important mistakes for the sort of code you're currently working on.
Also, to add to the above as far as what to collect:
what are the symptoms of the mistake (so you can find it later)
how you actually solved it
Yes, tracking your personal mistakes is beneficial. Refer to the SEI for numerous data points (here's one at random). One such methodology is the Personal Software Process (PSP). It's too long to go into here, but here's a book about it. There's also this free SEI publication on PSP.
If you balk at SEI and think Agile is the way to go, you'll probably get better mileage out of a book like Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship (publisher website).
Bottom line: disciplined developer = good, undisciplined developer = bad.
I would also want to ask the question of how much time would be required to accurately track the mistakes, and if that time could be better spent directly on improving the software instead. If you can do this in a minimal amount of time and are able to refer back to your records to prevent future mistakes, it may be valuable. In the long run though, I think it will be better to stick with an absolutely high level list of common mistakes you make.
I'd look for trends or similar types of errors that tend to recur. Once you're aware of the types of errors you make, you can be alert for them, or you can change your coding style to avoid them.
As an example, I worked very closely with my office-mate in a previous life. At one point I was halfway through my first sentence explaining some odd behavior, and he interrupted with, "increment your counter." I still double-check my loop counters today!
Instead of keeping a log of future mistakes, maybe you could review your bugtracker history, and try to find common types of errors which keep ocurring.
I'm so inspired I think I'll try this tommorow.
"What information related to my mistakes should I be keeping track of so that I can improve as a programmer?"
Read other people blogs. Write your own. You don't have to publish it. But you do have to turn each mistake into a story.
Don't drown this in metadata. This isn't amenable to a database or even a bug tracker. A mistake is a story where someone made a bad choice and recovered from it.
Here's your outline.
Context. What was going on.
Situation. The problem you were trying to solve.
What you did. Why it was bad.
What you should have done. Why it was better.
What changed. What you learned.
You should also record your successes in almost the same form.
Context. What was going on.
Situation. The problem you were trying to solve.
What you did. Why it was good.
What you learned.
When in doubt watch a movie. Seriously. Characters a confronted with choices, make mistakes and recover from those mistakes. That story line is the essence of drama. A mistake is the same thing.
Be careful what you log. Not every bad situation is a mistake. Some situations are inevitable or so far outside your control that nothing can be done about it.
Bad planning on someone else's part which puts you into panic-mode isn't your mistake. You can meticulously log everyone else's mistakes, but what's the point? If you're tracking what other people are doing, you should seek therapy.
Bad planning which provides inadequate budget, schedule or communication about changes may be a compound problem.
You didn't provide enough planning information up front.
In the scramble to cope, you made another mistake which lead to problem resolution and recovery.
In hindsight (which is always 20/20) you can see a decision which was wrong. However, at the time, it was based on best available information. That's not a mistake. Any sentence that begins "If we'd known that X..." is useless for mistake analysis. You can try to write a checklist of all the things you need to know next time you make that decision. But next time, you won't be making exactly that decision and some other piece of information will turn up missing.
Never call other people's actions mistakes.
Find the root causes. It's a root cause when it's something you can't control.
Don't retroactively call information that turned up missing a mistake.
I have been thinking the same thing. For the time being I keep a little spreadsheet with bugs I correct. The purpose of this is to make myself aware of the more common errors being made.
Hopefully I will start to see patterns and avoid making common errors over and over again.
I find that this makes my job more interesting, probably since I am an analytical person who likes to collect data and information in a structured manner.
You should try to relate the errors to use of inadequate tools, habits, methods or knowledge. In most cases you will find there would have been ways to catch the error earlier. Things like type-safety, unit-testing, code-review, coding standards, better API design, better documentation and working environment, comes to my mind.
I use JIRA with a custom workflow. For a bug, the last step before an issue is closed is a screen that allows me to select a "root cause". I've got a history of the root cause of every bug that's occurred in the last 3 systems I've built.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
During hiring a .NET web developer I give the candidate a coding test.
I tend to limit the candidate to MSDN installed on the test server - I think it holds everything the candidate needs to complete the task.
I admit, this is not the normal case as I don't expect the candidate to do his work without use of the web.
On the other hand I don't want the candidate to google for a complete example and copy-paste it, i want to evaluate his skills.
The question is do I need to allow free use of the web during the test?
If you think the whole coding test is wrong - I would like to hear alternatives you may have for me.
As you say, 'I don't expect the candidate to do his work without use of the web' why not allow it too during the test? And what if he does copy and paste? I do that too. Surely the key is to know where to look, be discerning with what you find and apply it intelligently. Do you want to hire someone with a terrific memory or someone who can develop software for you?
When I was at school, calculators were just becoming affordable. As their use was seen as unavoidable, the exams were changed. Simple number-crunching was no longer tested in the way it was before (it was important then). Rather problem-solving techniques were to be tested.
I usually allow candidates to use whatever resources they want. After they're done, I sit down with them and go through their code together, ask questions like why they chose that particular approach etc.
If a couple of minutes of Googling was enough to not just copypaste some code but to learn enough about it to be able to defend the decisions within, then he's intelligent enough!
There are tests, where web access can be given, and there are where it doesn't really make sense.
Case where its fine to allow web access
When its unlikely to find even 60 percent of the code over the net
When you will ask to explain the code after he/she completed the code
A very specific solution using SQL query, which is unlikely to be found on the web
Case where its fine to not allow web access
Some basic programs like, recurssion, fibonacci, factorial, string manipulation, small trick programs, etc. There is no need of computer even in some of these cases
I'm very sceptical about coding tests during interviews. I think that a lot of the test I have seen, represent very specific (artificial, non real-world) problems where you would use the internet to solve them.
I think it's not really important to know how to solve such problems by heart - often time it is much more important that you know how and where to search for answers.
If you want to test the persons during the interview, I think it is better to ask them some conceptual questions instead of a specific programming problem. E.g: questions about object orientation, polymorphism, design of n-tier application, etc. etc.
Or as an example from the ASP.NET world, ask the interviewed person question such as: what is ViewState, what is a postback, what is session-/application-state, etc.
If you want to get an idea of how a candidate will perform in a job, I think it's best to try and make the conditions of the test as close as possible to the actual working conditions.
It should be pretty easy to prevent copy-and-pasters from slipping through the cracks by asking the candidate to explain his/her code.
Well, one thing you want to be aware of is that the developer you hire might not know everything that he will be thrown during the time he is working for you. If you ask him a question that he doesn't know off the top of his head you would want and expect him to research it and come back to you with proof that he understood the concepts that he just learned.
I say let them use the web - but ask them to explain in their own words how their code works. Most of my knowledge comes from online resources. However, I make sure that every line of code I write I understand.
There is a baseline knowledge that developers in a particular field should know; but you also want to figure out how quickly he can learn new things. A good test IMO is to throw a question you know he doesn't know and see how long he can figure it out using the resources he would have if he were an employee of your company.
Is your goal to see what basic knowledge the candidate has and if he can code without copying solutions from the web, then don't allow internet access. If you want to see what strategies he employs to get to a solution, let him use the web if he wants to.
I personally find it more interesting if a candidate can solve problems on a larger scale than just solving a simple programming problem. So I tend to ask him about the methods he uses when programming (Unit testing? Ever worked with it? What do you think of it?). This gives me a better picture than coding in an interview situation.
Sometimes it helps if you ask the candidates beforehand to bring a one-page coding sample to take a look at their coding style. This also saves you time during the interview.
It's important to make sure a candidate is resourceful - you don't want your programmer sitting there when they get stuck, not moving forward; you want them to use whatever resources are at hand - be it MSDN, picking someone else's brains, using the web, etc - to get the job done. Cut-n-paste from the web does seem like cheating, but (a) if you design your task carefully then it will be unique enough for there not to be a standard answer they can copy from the web, and (b) isn't re-using existing code a key part of building software? It's not much different from using 3rd-party libraries, to avoid reinventing the wheel. On the downside, of course, you also want them to show they can develop algorithms, so the unique task needs to include some element that requires that without the solution already being on the web. Trouble is, forums are the achilles heel to all of that since they can simply ask for the solution and someone, somewhere, is going to hand over the answer unwittingly!
Allow the candidate to use the web but tell him beforehand that if he used the web, you will have to evaluate HOW he solved the problem.
If he used the web for something simple such as finding the syntax or parameters which he forgot, don't mark him down. This is normal.
If he used the web for something like look at how a specific function is used, don't mark him down. This is normal.
If he searched for a specific code and then copy-paste it, then ask him about how the code works. If he can explain how the code works, then there's no reason to mark him down. If he can't explain it without looking at the site where he got the code, you have to mark him down.
If he used stackoverflow.com, check his profile for questions, answers and badges. From there, you can check how good a programmer he is.
It all depends what you want out of your successful candidate. I contest the view that knowing how to google makes you a good programmer because the simple fact is that the internet is full of bad examples as well as good ones. You don't really want your codebase to reflect how lucky your googler was on the day he cut and pasted all his code off the web. You want it to demonstrate sound practices, proven methodologies & elegant, efficient solutions that your team understand and are enthusiastic about. Not a jumble of styles that don't resemble each other. There's a wealth of good to be gotten from knowing how to get help from the interweb but real knowledge and ancient wisdom is being lost every day that people who don't really understand what they are doing are given jobs because they appear to solve problems with their ability to "google it".
If you really want to give your candidates access to the web then by all means do, but make the questions hard and scrutinise the results to see if they've picked the first solution they found or if they've picked the best solution to the problem.
As do many other respondents, I'd rather employ a resourceful developer who know how to use the web to the fullest to draw on other's experiences and previous work, than a developer who limits himself and his applications to the MSDN way of doing things.
I copy other peoples code all the time - daily in fact. The knack of it depends on finding the right solution quickly and integrating it into your existing work.
So let your candidate use the web and ask him how he came to his solutions. You might learn more about him from his methods than from how will he can remember previous solutions.
Three things I'd do.
Let applicants send in a coding example along with their cv.
Let applicants produce some real-life code (maybe even pair-program with a developer on your team) this will show you if they can actually use the tools. Internet is a tool too so they should be able to use internet.
Let applicants solve a problem in pseudo code on a blackboard during the interview. In this case you can be their "internet" by helping them.
These three approaches will show you different things. The first is a good early warning mechanism but can easily be faked (they could just download oss code from the web somewhere). The second is good to see if they can actually code but they might score badly if they're unfamiliar with the tools you use. The third will show you if they can solve theoretical problems but won't show you if they actually are good team players or if they write maintainable code.
I recently had a friend start talking to me on IM, he was in a coding test job interview. He had a couple SQL questions. At first i thought, hell you've got to do this yourself. I'm not going to help you cheat during an interview.
Then i thought about it again. I've been answering questions and talking to him about various technical issues for years on IM as part of his work. So when he encounters problems in the real world with the job if he gets hired, he'll do the same thing.
We don't talk about it much, but having a good network of friends to ask questions, and knowing how to search out relevant answers on the net are a big part of being an effective programmer or sysadmin. I've met people who were super smart programmers, but didn't really know how to find information online. They missed a lot, were kind of out of the loop. Knowing how to use resources should be important.
When i do interviews i often ask people what websites they read, what development tools they use, and why. It's a similar thing. Sure it's not about how they write x line of code, but it's about how they work.
No how to get around somebody just copy and pasting "answers". Well first, don't ask questions which have pat answers. Secondly when i'm interviewing i like to give people some code, ask them to refactor it, have them talk through what they are thinking. Then ask them to write some new code which implements a feature. Pair program with them. It's hard to hide inability to code when pair programming. While they are pairing, it totally makes sense to say, "let's go look up the api on the date time library."