Slashdot Mirror


The Software Inferno

CowboyRobot writes "The Software Inferno is a tale that parallels The Inferno, Part One of The Divine Comedy written by Dante Alighieri in the early 1300s. That literary masterpiece describes the condemnation and punishment faced by a variety of sinners in their hell-spent afterlives as recompense for atrocities committed during their earthly existences. The Software Inferno is a similar account, describing a journey where 'sinners against software' are encountered amidst their torment, within their assigned areas of eternal condemnation, and paying their penance. Quoting: 'CANTO 6 - HERESY: ...The countess explained that these chaotically traveling souls were strongly at variance with well-established beliefs and laws of software engineering developed by experts on the subject. Their unabashed contempt for universally accepted truths spawned decision making that wrought great damage upon software projects in their charge. Some challenged Fred Brooks' sacred counsel in futile attempts to rise above their failings by adding new people with woefully insufficient qualifications to rescue already-late projects. Others flaunted their derision by disregarding software design patterns sanctified by the Gang of Four, instead opting for inelegance of their own in attempts to solve problems whose solutions were already proven, well known, and time-honored.'"

109 comments

  1. there is a place in hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    reserved for me and my friends

  2. Frosty from beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Posting from beta.

    Breaking two lines. Is this being formatted right?

    Thanks,
    AC

  3. How is this news/stuffthatmatters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a slashvertisement for some bloke's paper. It's a reiteration of well known mantras, at best. Nothing to see here, move along.

    1. Re:How is this news/stuffthatmatters? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      We're the only audience of sheeple who might care. Alas...I skimmed the summary and still don't. Zzzzzz...

    2. Re:How is this news/stuffthatmatters? by icebike · · Score: 2

      This is just a slashvertisement for some bloke's paper. It's a reiteration of well known mantras, at best. Nothing to see here, move along.

      I figured that out just by content. I hovered the mouse pointer over the first link, saw it lead to noplace likely to have real news, and decided I'm not playing that game.

      TLDR. Too Lame, Didn't Read.

      Seriously, the firehose readers that vote this crap up really need to clean up their act.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  4. Always a little creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Gives me chills when I see people talking about tech like it was a religion.

    1. Re:Always a little creepy by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Gives me chills when I see people talking about tech like it was a religion.

      Walk by any Apple store.

    2. Re:Always a little creepy by Empiric · · Score: 2

      And not even an actual religion at that. Dante's works, though well-known, are extensive fictionalized extrapolations from the religion upon which they are based. It is more like religious "fan fiction" than religion, IMHO.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    3. Re:Always a little creepy by Antipater · · Score: 1

      Not only that, they're read today more for the beautiful poetry than for any religious reason. I skimmed TFA and didn't see any sign of verse.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    4. Re:Always a little creepy by snookerdoodle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A possibly interesting tangent:

      It may surprise /. folks to learn that much of what modern Christendom believes about hell is actually from this man and not from Moses, Jesus, Paul, Peter, et al. I.e.: The Bible doesn't really teach the version of hell everyone seems to believe in. Rob Bell has an easy to read book ("Love Wins", to which Francis Chan's "Erasing Hell" is a somewhat non sequitor of a response) and Edward Fudge has some somewhat more in depth treatises on this for people who want to exercise their Google-fu.

      And yes, it's more complicated than "Dante Created Hell", with ideas from philosophers and other religions entering the mix. Dante just gave preachers a nice manipulative tool to scare the ignorant into toeing whatever line they drew. And, perhaps, give us some feeling of justice for truly evil people.

    5. Re:Always a little creepy by Empiric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes... and there's a similar challenge produced by the influence of Milton's "Paradise Lost".

      These two are a major source of what the general public -thinks- they know about historical Christianity.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    6. Re:Always a little creepy by Empiric · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that the majority here on Slashdot know his verse only from the "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" line used in the text adventure game "Zork"...

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    7. Re:Always a little creepy by jythie · · Score: 1

      Try reading through "The Codeless Code" sometime. Religion from a Java server application development perspective. Spoiler, everyone else dies horrible deaths.

    8. Re:Always a little creepy by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Ask any Jehovah's Witness and they'll tell you this over, and over, and over.............

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Always a little creepy by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Apple Fan Boys are the Rajneeshees of the tech world.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    10. Re:Always a little creepy by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      Not really. If you take a step be, you quickly see most people belief's in anything they care about resemble religion.

      People talk about their political beliefs, their love for LRT transit, technology, art, their healthcare career... with all the good and bad of religion.

      I sometimes find when people talk about these things, they're actually more passionate in both the good and bad way, than religious people are.

      I would assume this is because religion is pretty vague and many things are left for the unseen. Hell is a concept, but its all imaginary as far as we can see.

      But the earthly things people care about are huge and they carry real life consequences. If you have political beliefs, you see the consequences right away. Poor people, wars, infringements of freedom...

      If you care about transit. You see the consequences every day. Traffic jams, taxes, crowded busses and subways, late for work...

      And if you care about code, you see the consequences every day. Bugs and bugs, performance problems, documentation, crashes, rewriting bad code...

      When you get down to it, most people are far more religious about such things than religious people are about religion.

    11. Re:Always a little creepy by narcc · · Score: 1

      Only if they understand Italian. If you're reading it in English, stick with Pinsky's translation. He captures the triple rhyming surprisingly well.

    12. Re:Always a little creepy by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Religion from a Java server application development perspective. Spoiler, everyone else dies horrible deaths.

      Well sure, but at least they are collected after.

      Java - Rapture for everyone, eventually!

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    13. Re:Always a little creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You ever read some of the skull-denting drivel from Space True Believers?

    14. Re:Always a little creepy by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      Putting it in a form that people are familiar with can make it an easier or more entertaining read. I first read Henry Spencer's 10 commandments for C programmers some 30 years ago. It was good then; it is still largely relevant with a few changes, eg: in commandment 10 substitute 'Intel' for 'VAX'; commandment 1: well the 'lint' function is usually available as a high warning level in most compilers.

    15. Re:Always a little creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well sure, but at least they are collected after.

      Only if the collector kicks in before the process terminates.

    16. Re:Always a little creepy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      non sequitor

      We got us a top-notch scholar of the classics here, folks.

  5. And if statistical software is your forte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're in luck! The R Inferno

  6. So, which is it? by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Others flaunted their derision by disregarding software design patterns sanctified by the Gang of Four, instead opting for inelegance of their own in attempts to solve problems whose solutions were already proven, well known, and time-honored.

    Says someone posting via heretical Von Neumann Machine, long live Turing Machines!

    Posted via Android on ARM hosted in Linux on x86-64 running in 32 bit mode!

    Those knowledgeable of Cybernetics, Genetics, or Information Theory emit the most holy evil-grin when confronted with the term "Design Pattern".

    1. Re:So, which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Half of the "patterns" in GoF are just workarounds for problems with the C++ language.

    2. Re:So, which is it? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The 7th circle is reserved for people who insist of shoe-horning every piece of code into a GOF design pattern.......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:So, which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Need mod points now... grrr

      Anyone who believes "developed by experts" is a stamp of quality, is in no position to judge others.

    4. Re:So, which is it? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Anyone who believes "developed by experts" is a stamp of quality, is in no position to judge others.

      Wow, that is a great quote.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:So, which is it? by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or for the people who failed to realize that the design patterns were originally about communication, not solutions.

    6. Re:So, which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 7th circle is reserved for people who insist of shoe-horning every piece of code into a GOF design pattern.......

      No one knows which circle of hell because they can't fucking follow the over-engineered mess. Fuck the GOF. Fuck the design patterns book. And fuck every monkey who thought that following that shit was a recipe for success. But mostly fuck the motherfucker who wrote the article and his minion who wrote the summy. Gang of Four? Gang of FUCKERS!

  7. Oh my god... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is this bullshit user interface. I can't stand it.

  8. A bit obtuse by mugnyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's entertaining, typically weird article from Bell. They're a bit snarky but somewhat long-winded - his penchant to build classifications of things overrides any real deep-dive into what he's talking about. And his daughter appears in every article, I'm surprised there isn't a "17 types of annoying child" article yet.

    His other complaints: UML, XML, Agile misuse/overuse - each with an article, blog post that has invented classifications.
    Where's the one on "taxonomy joke" overuse?

    1. Re:A bit obtuse by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can tell roughly at what time he became a software engineer. Everything invented before is "universally accepted truth." Everything after is in the 7th circle of hell.

      Now, get off my lawn, if it's not vacuum tubes in accumulators, it's useless! We don't need these newfangled 'registers' and 'assembly languages,' we have patch wires!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:A bit obtuse by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Speaking of Bell, reading the headline, I first thought that the post was about the FOSS equivalent of Plan 9 from Bell Labs

  9. I guess I'm going to hell by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

    Because I always thought there was a special place for those who could cram 7 GoF patterns into a HelloWorld, whether they needed them, or were ever ever ever going to extend or reuse the HelloWorld or not.

  10. I'll read this right away! but first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while( !$hell_freezeth_over )
    {
    $hell_freezeth_over = is_hell_frozen();
    }

    read_book();

    1. Re:I'll read this right away! but first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Be careful. You have an uninitialized variable in line 1.

      while(! is_hell_frozen() )
      ;

      read_book();

    2. Re:I'll read this right away! but first... by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Sleep your thread man!

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  11. The Group of 4? by docmur · · Score: 1

    Coming up with a completely stupid name for a simple pattern doesn't make you a good programmer. The Group of 4 decided they would look at the "common" patterns used in programming and instead of doing something useful, they would just assign them pointless names. Anyone who quotes the Group of 4 with intention of using the names they came up with, generally, isn't a good programmer. A good programmer is busy writing / testing code and doesn't have the time or the need to read and remember books about how to use code patterns or best measures. The aspects you look for in code are as follows:

    1. The code is fast, efficient and not bulky.
    2. The code is secure.
    3. The code is not locked to a single platform.
    4. The code is written to complete it's required task and not for style and beauty above function.

    If you are focusing on anything else then you aren't programming, you are wasting time and trying to be more then you are. A programmer is a programmer is a programmer, you are not an engineer or any other stupid name / label you want to give yourself. You want to go to programmers hell, simple, read code written by stuck up, over trained, programmers who think they are skilled and have a big mouth.

    The number of university students / new grads I've had to fire is kind of shocking. They love to quote pattern names and complain about the use of certain syntax choices and the use of pointers, yet they never turn out usably good code. It's not just university students that have this problem, pretty much anyone who went to post secondary school with the intention of becoming a PROGRAMMER, NOT, SOFTWARE ENGINEER, with have this issue. Your job as a programmer is to turn out good code in a timely manner and once you leave that frame of mind you aren't doing your job. Do that for long enough and you should be fired, regardless of how many theoretical books agree with you, including the Group of 4. If my project was programmed using new age design methodology and methods it would have at least 7x more overhead and run 3x slower then it currently does. No one should put up with slow runtime and greater overhead because a bunch of programmers decided to write a book or many books. Once it runs well it needs to be stable and secure and then I've done my job.

    1. Re:The Group of 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minor point, but it's the "Gang of Four", not the "Group of Four".

    2. Re:The Group of 4? by mugnyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I don't completely disagree with you, "good code" seems to imply a judgement based on some values. In enterprise systems, the transferability, maintainability and self-documenting concepts in code can play as much a role as footprint, security and speed. Not all systems are dancing on the edge of "too big" or "too slow" - they are closer to failure because of "poorly defined", "too fragile" and/or "too esoteric".
      A company may want to keep modules in plainspeak, well-documented and slower .NET componentized form because they burn through developers every 2 years, like the industry avg. If your job stops as "stable and secure" you may not really be contributing to a software system portfolio like a large company needs.

    3. Re:The Group of 4? by QilessQi · · Score: 1

      Which is why, in an enterprise development environment with high project turnover, adherence to the names of the GoF patterns can be valuable as well. If you have an objects of class Foo and FooFactory, then everyone familiar with GoF will understand that the FooFactory's purpose is to create new Foo instances. Likewise, many developers will be able to guess what FooDecorator and FooVisitor do.

    4. Re:The Group of 4? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Those aren't the four things I look for in a program. I look for this:

      1) Does the code work/fill the requirements? (high efficiency might be a requirement, or it might not. Same with cross-platform compatibility).
      2) Is the code readable? If not, it doesn't matter how great your design is, people who come after you will rewrite it.
      3) Is the code flexible? If not, your design is more a hindrance than a help.

      Code that fills all three of those is rare and beautiful.

      A good programmer is busy writing / testing code and doesn't have the time or the need to read and remember books

      A good programmer is always looking to improve his skill in any way available, including reading.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:The Group of 4? by jythie · · Score: 2

      To be fair, their original intent was to help with communication, so they looked at patterns people had been using and tried to put them into a simple taxonomy so that programmers could talk to each other about how they structured things. It was less about 'there is a problem, this factory pattern will solve it' and more 'I used a factory pattern, now you have an idea of what to expect from this code'.

    6. Re:The Group of 4? by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The aspects you look for in code are as follows:

      The list can be reduced to:

      1. Does it serve the users well.

      Note that I have not said, "does it do what the users asked for" or "what the user wants". Users may make requests that fall short of what is possible, or are impossible, or will not be workable in the long run. Part of your organization's job is to let the user know what will work. Part of your job is also to surprise the users in a pleasant way. Pleasant surprises are "oh wow, we can use keyboard shortcuts for that now" as opposed to "we re-arranged the UI and added dancing bears because everybody is doing that now".

      Anyway, I digress. It all reduces to the one rule cited.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    7. Re:The Group of 4? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The list can be reduced to:

      1. Does it serve the users well.

      I think that list badly needs a 2. Is the code maintainable. It doesn't matter how orgasmically beautiful and lightning quick the code is if it can only be changed by Chuck...who just died of a heart attack last week. Uh oh.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    8. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      so they looked at patterns people had been using

      Which is precisely what they did NOT do. They didn't uncover them, they just made shit up.

      'there is a problem,

      (Which we have absolutely no reason to believe is common because we did no research what-so-ever.)

      this factory pattern will solve it'

      (Though we have no reason to believe that it's a common solution, or even a good general solution.)

      'I used a factory pattern, now you have an idea of what to expect from this code'.

      That much is true. When I see a "factory pattern", or any other "pattern", I know that the code is very likely to be total garbage.

    9. Re:The Group of 4? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Group of 4

      Z4 or Z2xZ2

      How do you get subscripts on this?

    10. Re:The Group of 4? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      The maintainability requirement ultimately flows from the "one rule" as well. It's not as urgent as "runs without crashing every five minutes" but it's a valid concern. If everything goes well the company grows organically, turns the corner, and Chuck's code is gradually superseded by the process weenies that come in when the company gets large.

      If you hold on to unmaintainable code too long, it will be impossible to add features, maintain performance, port to new systems or do things that customers want and need.

      So I agree that it's important; but not that it needs to be its own rule. If you go on a witch-hunt for Chuck before he is "in season" you'll bag Chuck but the customer will get away.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    11. Re:The Group of 4? by shoor · · Score: 1

      "Does it serve the users well?" is a question that needs to be asked from time to time when developing code as a way of keeping perspective. But the point of the rules and guidelines is to find ways to achieve that goal. Whether the rules and guidelines actually serve their own users well is another question.

      --
      In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
    12. Re:The Group of 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If 1 is true, then 2 and 3 are unnecessary. They will rewrite if it doesn't work. They will rewrite it any case when new tools, new environments, new people are available.

      You may as well code in APL as .Net.

    13. Re:The Group of 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is precisely what they did NOT do. They didn't uncover them, they just made shit up.

      Citation needed. The book in question is FULL of existing systems that they examined and how & why the patterns in question were used in those systems. You may not agree with them, but don't accuse them of not doing the research unless you can back it up, please.

    14. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Which is precisely what they did NOT do. They didn't uncover them, they just made shit up.

      [citation needed]

      IOW you're full of it. Common patterns in design, i.e. sensible general designs occur all over the place. The GoF didn't uncover them all but they are certainly common patterns. It's very helpful to be able to refer to them with a widely understood name.

      Or for less experienced people to tell them it's an instance of FooPattern so they can look it up, rather than having to read all of the code not knmowing what is relevant.

      That much is true. When I see a "factory pattern", or any other "pattern", I know that the code is very likely to be total garbage.

      The unix open(2) system call is a classic factory pattern.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      The GoF didn't uncover them all but they are certainly common patterns.

      So ... Where's the evidence? Where's the research? What do you think about beliefs unsupported by evidence?

      It's very helpful to be able to refer to them with a widely understood name.

      Are you sure about that? Again, where's the evidence? You can tell me personal stories all day, and I can match every one with a tale of pattern abuse. That won't get us anywhere. Let me known when there's some actual research that supports your assertion.

      The unix open(2) system call is a classic factory pattern.

      That's more than a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Connecting this to your earlier quote, how does inexplicably calling it a "factory" benefit anyone?

    16. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So ... Where's the evidence? Where's the research?

      oooh I dunno. Try looking at the citations to the 8 page bibliography in the back of the book.

      That's more than a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

      No, not at all. It's classic factory pattern.

      You get a handle to a base class with a bunch of virtual methods (read, write, close, lseek, fcntl, ioctl, select and so on). The kernel chooses the derived class based on the arguments (i.e. filename) passed to the factory. The underlying behaviour of the derived class is quite different depending on the arguments, e.g. vfat versus iso9660 versus UDF not to mention things like device files and named pipes etc.

      If you examine the Linux kernel, you will see that the VFS layer is very OO in its design.

      Connecting this to your earlier quote, how does inexplicably calling it a "factory" benefit anyone?

      Well, by calling a factory, you could deduce something about the way it works. You'd be correct, too.

      The only reason you think it's a stretch is because you seem blinded by hatred of a common taxonomy just because some unrelated people have abused it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    17. Re:The Group of 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that list badly needs a 2. Is the code maintainable.

      No. If the code is used for an extended time, unmaintainable code will not serve the user well because there will be problems updating the code to keep up with changing demands, or even just fixing bugs the users have found. If the code will not be used a second time, who cares about maintainability? (Apart from the fact that the techniques to write bug-free code and the techniques to write maintainable code have a very large overlap, of course, so well-written code will likely end up to be maintainable even if not written with maintainability in mind).

    18. Re:The Group of 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you get subscripts on this?

      I think you can't.

      I originally thought fixed space using <ecode> would work, but even that eats multiple spaces if they don't appear at the beginning of a line (and sometimes it even eats spaces at the beginning). Then I tried <tt> and &nbsp; but Slashdot completely removes &nbsp; — it doesn't even replace it with a normal space.

      In short, Slashdot is horribly broken in that regard.

    19. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      oooh I dunno.

      No surprise there. It's because it doesn't actually exist. You'll find absolutely no research to support your assertions.

      Since you don't care about evidence and obviously like accepting things on blind faith, I have an argument that's very likely to convince you: The ghost of Steve Jobs appeared to me on a piece of toast and told me that design patterns were nonsense.

      Well, by calling a factory, you could deduce something about the way it works.

      In your example, you don't. You gain absolutely no benefit. It's just you desperately trying to force it in to conform to terms with which you're comfortable, but it's silly and pointless self-delusion. That fact is that GoF "patterns" not based on actual research. They are nothing more than snake-oil manufactured out of whatever the GoF decided sounded good to them.

      Here in reality, we rely on facts and evidence. In GoF land, whatever silly nonsense you can imagine is a-okay!

      If you examine the Linux kernel, you will see that the VFS layer is very OO in its design.

      Ah, you're one of those. You can't reason with the "everything is OO" nuts and you're a step beyond them; your ridiculous example implies you're also one of the rare "patterns are everywhere" nuts.

      Your like the Ray Comfort of programmers. "Evidence of design patterns is all around us. Just look at this banana..."

    20. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      No surprise there.

      Well done for failing to read. Allow me to repeat: try liiking at the citations into the large bibliography. There's the research right there.

      So either put up or shut up. I've held up my side and provided evidence supporting my case. You have failed to do so.

      And the "oooh dunno" was sarcasm.

      your ridiculous example implies

      So, I take it you've never done any VFS hacking. It's full of virtual functions and derivation, C style. Actually much of the kernel is.

      But feel free to live in your own special little world where everything is special especially the things you do. Must be a happy world where you're the long genius forging your own happy little path hnever doing anything the same as anyone else.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    21. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      try liiking at the citations into the large bibliography. There's the research right there.

      Look again. What you think is there, simply isn't there. You just really wish it was.

      I hate to break it to you, but your holy book is nothing more than the mad scribblings of some 90's guys. It has no rational basis.

      Not that you care. I can't argue with religious zealots.

    22. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I can't argue with religious zealots.

      I'm the one who provided evidence, you're the one spweing nothing but insults and empty rhetoric. And you thinl I'm the zealot??

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    23. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out, your evidence isn't. Take a look at it yourself. Your "evidence" completely supports my earlier assertions! Go ahead and actually look at what you're offering as "evidence". You're in for quite a surprise.

      It's not my fault that reality doesn't support your irrational beliefs.

    24. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out, your evidence isn't.

      No, you haven't pointed out, you've asserted it without a shred of evidence.

      GoF is full of references and citations to large existing software projects. You can see all of these references if you read the book. You're merely asserting that it is not the case. I can see the former, therefore do to anything more than make hollow assertions, you have to give some shred of evidence for the latter.

      You might not like the evidence or the conclusions they come to, but pretending that they don't have any evidence is disengenuous at best.

      You're going to have to do better than "their evdince isn't because I say so". Try actually pointing out a specific example or two. Bet you can't.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    25. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      Your inability to comprehend the seemingly obvious isn't my problem.

      You'll find that, upon competent examination, the claims I made are undeniably true.

      I'm sorry that reality does not conform to your preconceptions.

      you've asserted it without a shred of evidence.

      It's all in the book. As I've pointed out, you've already offered substantial evidence in support of my assertions.

      Hell, just read the introduction, which makes it clear that the nonsense "patterns" are based on personal experience, not actual research. Try reading the book instead of just reading about it on blogs and forums.

    26. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You'll find that, upon competent examination, the claims I made are undeniably true.

      Ah, no true scotsman would disagree with you, right?

      So far our conversation has gone like this:

      You: The GoF didn't do research.
      Me: what about all those citations pointing to examples of projects.
      You: That's not proper resaerch.
      Me: How?
      You: No true scotsman would believe it is.

      I'm sorry that reality does not conform to your preconceptions.

      And I'm sorry that you are utterly unable to describe your version of reality beyond telling me I'm wrong. Actually, I'm not sorry: it amuses me.

      Hell, just read the introduction, which makes it clear that the nonsense "patterns" are based on personal experience, not actual research. Try reading the book instead of just reading about it on blogs and forums.

      Ah you sound like one of those funny little people that believe science should be the dispassionate search for knowledge and scientists sould act like automatons. A clue: the authors are allowed to use personal experience and intuition provided it is actuallt backed up with evidence. In the intro they mention experience, in the book they actually provide evidence. That's all those citations I was telling you about. Remember?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:The Group of 4? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. The code is written to complete it's required task and not for style and beauty above function.

      5. Has apostrophes only where they should be.

    28. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      In the intro they mention experience, in the book they actually provide evidence

      No, they provide a few examples. That's not evidence. See, the examples are there to imply that these alleged "patterns" actually are common solutions to common problems.

      There is no reason to believe that "patterns", by their definition, exist at all.
      There is no reason to believe that the "patterns" they present are representative.
      There is no reason to believe that the problems the "patterns" are intended to solve are common. (How frequently the problems appear)
      There is no reason to believe that the "patterns" are common solutions to said problems. (How often the "solutions" are used compared to alternatives)

      All because no actual research has been done!

      Of course, if you think a couple examples is sufficient evidence, I can happily provide you with numerous examples of how the use of GoF patterns is harmful. When you figure out why you wouldn't consider that "evidence" then you'll understand why the "evidence" you present isn't.

    29. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      No, they provide a few examples. That's not evidence. See, the examples are there to imply that these alleged "patterns" actually are common solutions to common problems

      A pattern is a recurring thing.

      If they provide multiple exmaples of where the same thing has spontaneously and independently occured then that is pretty much by definition evidence for a pattern.

      There is no reason to believe that "patterns", by their definition, exist at all.

      They occured multiple times independently, ergo they exist.

      There is no reason to believe that the "patterns" they present are representative.

      They occured multiple times, therefore in those cases, they are representitive.

      There is no reason to believe that the problems the "patterns" are intended to solve are common.

      You have the all too common misconception about what patterns are. You ascribe agency to them where none exists. Patterns are not intended to do anything. They are a mere observation of the way people solve problems. It is the observtion that many design problems in computing have similar structure and many of the solutions to the sub problems are more or less the same in their structure.

      A pattern does nothing. It is not intended for anything. It is an observation of how people solve the same problem.

      There is no reason to believe that the "patterns" are common solutions to said problems. (How often the "solutions" are used compared to alternatives)

      Well, they are common within the set of examples.

      All because no actual research has been done!

      Except they went and looked at a bunch of examples and found all those things within them.

      You can debate whether the examples are representitive if you like. That's fair. But to deny the observable fact that they did actally do research is about as stupid as denying the observable fact of evolution. Then again, we gat a lot of those on slashdot too. Are you one of them by any chance?

      Of course, if you think a couple examples is sufficient evidence,

      18 pages of citations is more than a couple of examples.

      I can happily provide you with numerous examples of how the use of GoF patterns is harmful.

      No shit! Many people (including you according to elements of your reply) seem to believe that patterns are things to be "applied". If you do that, then you will use them in wildly inappropriate places. If you believe that GoF is anything more than a taxonomy then you may as well also blame Samuel Johnson when you say something stupid.

      When you figure out why you wouldn't consider that "evidence" then you'll understand why the "evidence" you present isn't.

      You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "conclusions you agree with". You are really very like one of those anti-evolution people. You might also want to be careful to check those words in a dictionary. Make sure you only use one which agreed with your definition of "evidence".

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    30. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      Patterns are not intended to do anything. ... Many people (including you according to elements of your reply) seem to believe that patterns are things to be "applied"

      From Page 1: "These patterns solve specific design problems" "...can apply them [patterns] immediately to design problems" Yes, the very first page.

      From Page 3: "a pattern has four essential elements [...] The problem describes when to apply the pattern"

      Have you read the book?

      A pattern does nothing. It is not intended for anything. It is an observation of how people solve the same problem.

      Some obvious facts: They didn't examine a large sample of programs (how were they selected?), identify common problems (using what methodology?) and how those problems were solved. They didn't compare their "patterns" to alternative solutions they would have found in their research to those common problems. (We don't even know if their nonsense "patterns" are the most common or even if they're comparatively good solutions!)

      Why is this so damn difficult for you to accept? According to the book, even the authors don't disagree with me here! "Patterns" are not based on any actual research. (They're pretty up-front about that. This shouldn't be a contentious point!) This is what you don't like --> It's just wishes and good feelings from a few snake-oil salesman who seem to think that personal experience is superior to rigor.

      Why don't you like that last bit? Because you're convinced that programming is (or can be) just like engineering. It's not, obviously, but a lot of people think it should be. Nonsense like "design patterns" appeals to you because it's a simple idea (people love simple ideas) that looks like it could turn software development in to a real engineering discipline. It's the exact same scam we've seen with countless other programming fads. It's doomed to failure, of course, as unlike data structures and algorithms, "patterns" are not language agnostic, nor are they subject to the same level of examination.

      Well, they are common within the set of examples

      Yes, you actually wrote that. I didn't make that up.

      You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "conclusions you agree with"

      What? I essentially said that a few anecdotes do not constitute evidence. (In context, they certainly aren't evidence that the authors based their "patterns" on actual research!) Again, If you'd like, I'll happily offer you numerous examples of where use of GoF "patterns" has been harmful. Would that convince you that GoF patterns are harmful? After all, they show a clear "pattern" of harm "common within the set of examples" I'll supply.

      What would you do with that? For the sake of argument, let's say I provided you with a long, boring, post showing ten solid examples of where use each GoF pattern has been harmful (230 examples!) Would you say that I did research and was forced to conclude that use of design patterns is harmful? Or would you say that I went out and found a few examples to fit my pre-determined conclusion? (See, this isn't complicated.)

      To my point, that the authors did not base their snake-oil on actual research, that's clearly an insufficient argument. For that, I'll direct you to the GoF book, which explicitly supports my claim that the authors based their nonsense on personal experience and not actual research.

    31. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      From Page 1: "These patterns solve specific design problems" "...can apply them [patterns] immediately to design problems" Yes, the very first page.

      Yep that's because problems are often similar. Therefore similar solutions will occur. Hence, pattern. If you go "applying" the patterns to all sorts of things then crap results.

      Why is this so damn difficult for you to accept? According to the book, even the authors don't disagree with me here!

      So what _are_ all those citations of other projects than? Farie dust?

      They're pretty up-front about that. This shouldn't be a contentious point!)

      [citation needed]

      This is what you don't like --> It's just wishes and good feelings from a few snake-oil salesman who seem to think that personal experience is superior to rigor.

      How is is wished and good feeling? The patterns exist.

      Why don't you like that last bit? Because you're convinced that programming is (or can be) just like engineering. It's not, obviously, but a lot of people think it should be. Nonsense like "design patterns" appeals to you because it's a simple idea (people love simple ideas) that looks like it could turn software development in to a real engineering discipline. It's the exact same scam we've seen with countless other programming fads. It's doomed to failure, of course, as unlike data structures and algorithms, "patterns" are not language agnostic, nor are they subject to the same level of examination.

      Well, people like you who refuse to believe that software systems need standards like engineering are doomed to build unreliable, unscalable systems. But hey, you'll know the algorithmic order so all will be good. Engineering is about solving big hard problems with established technology. This is what much of programming is.

      As for language agnostic? So? They work in a lot of common languages. You seem to be confusing maths (i.e. datastructures and algorithms) with a study on the way people build thigs with the tools available (design patterns). You'd do a lot better if you learned to distinguish those two very different things.

      What? I essentially said that a few anecdotes do not constitute evidence. (In context, they certainly aren't evidence that the authors based their "patterns" on actual research!)

      Ah the old canard about anecdotes. So at what magic point between nothing and examining every piece of software ever does it turn from anecdote to evidence? Just past the point where it would detract from yours, no doubt. Observations are evidence.

      What would you do with that? For the sake of argument, let's say I provided you with a long, boring, post showing ten solid examples of where use each GoF pattern has been harmful (230 examples!)

      Go ahead. Abuse of such things is well known as "anti patterns". These are common patterns for fouling up software design. Since these things are a study of how people designa and build things, a study of bad design is as valid as a study of good design.

      For that, I'll direct you to the GoF book, which explicitly supports my claim that the authors based their nonsense on personal experience and not actual research.

      You love clipping out actual quotes except to suport your main point.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    32. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      [citation needed] ... You love clipping out actual quotes except to suport your main point.

      If you can't be bothered to read the book you're defending, at least take the few minutes it takes to read the introduction.

      I've directed you there several times already.

    33. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I've directed you there several times already.

      You've directed me to the entirety of a book hundreds of pages long. Naturally if I fail to find what you want then obviously I'm not looking in the right place. Very convenient.

      Quote me a page and a line and I can look up the relevant quotes for myself. I'm not going to re-read the entire thing to hunt for a statement to back up a vague accusation from you.

      So we are back to the beginning and you have still failed to support your point with anything more than ad-homenim.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    34. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      To the introduction. I've directed you to the introduction several times already. This should be clear from my previous post -- and several other older posts.

      It's not long, it validates my claims, and (as you've seen) even directly contradicts a few of your points. It shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to read through the introduction.

      Given some of your claims (like the "apply" bit from earlier), I'm not convinced that you've ever read the book you're defending. Perhaps you should reserve your opinion until you've read it yourself?

    35. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's not long, it validates my claims, and (as you've seen) even directly contradicts a few of your points.

      A few of the side points, but not the main one. I don't deny that they mention personal experience in the introduction, but all research is bstarted with personal experience ultimately. The main part of the research, i.e. all the citations is in the main book.

      You keep on pretending that the rest of the book which invalidates your point does not exist.

      Given some of your claims (like the "apply" bit from earlier),

      I'd forgotten that bit to be honest. I also don't agree with that part. It's a bok on design, nt a religious text. There's no need for me to agree with the thing in its entirety or not at all.

      But that's irrelevant. You claim the patterns do not exist in the real world. They provide plenty of examples with citations. That's the research you keep hallucinating the nonexistence of.

      Not liking something and not agreeing with its conclusions is not the same as it not existing.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    36. Re:The Group of 4? by narcc · · Score: 1

      You claim the patterns do not exist in the real world.

      That's not what I'm claiming.

      They provide plenty of examples with citations. That's the research you keep hallucinating the nonexistence of.

      We've been over this. What do you think constitutes research? Put yourself in the authors position. You want to know if there are common solutions to common design problems. What do you do? You'll need a sample of computer programs to examine. How do you select that sample? You want to identify the design problems that appear most frequently, what is your methodology? How do you classify the solutions so that you can identify which solutions are common?

      What if we go even simpler? Let's say you believe that you've identified a common solution to a common design problem. How would you test that?

      What did the authors do?

      I'd forgotten that bit to be honest. I also don't agree with that part. It's a book on design, not a religious text.

      We may agree more than we disagree.

    37. Re:The Group of 4? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what we're arguing about. I think you're right that perhaps we agree more than not.

      I think we agree that the patterns do exist?

      We certainly agree that GoF is not a religious text with which one must not argue.

      As to whether they have done research, I think we're still arguing about that. I think what they did qualifies as research, I think they've backed it up with a decent number of decent citiations. Whether that's good research is another argument.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  12. Various Infernos by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    They clearly had fun writing that for at least the exercise in wordsmithing alone. I imagine it must also be satisfying to banish your tormentors to their judgment. Unfortunately there didn't appear to be a place reserved for trolls.

    Some other Infernos:

    Inferno - Fun read.
    Disco Inferno - Which Apple had fun with in this commercial.
    Some people like this: The Towering Inferno Trailer

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Various Infernos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately there didn't appear to be a place reserved for trolls.

      Then what is this site (also, see 4chan)? There are many places reserved for trolls.

    2. Re:Various Infernos by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I was hoping that it wasn't hell, and that we weren't going to be here for eternity. Are you suggesting that I'm wrong?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  13. threadbare hobbyist whiners rescued us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    easy to forget as the pr softwars still play out, co-opting good deeds (others' hard work) for personal gain is not new

  14. The Software Inferno by danielpauldavis · · Score: 1

    Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle did the best take on the classic of European literature; anything else will merely be a pale, insipid imitation that makes the reader wonder why the author bothered.

    --
    Cranky educator.
  15. Doesn't name names by Slamtilt · · Score: 2

    Part of the fun of the Divine Comedy at the time was that specific individuals were shown being tormented, and this doesn't do that.

    It totally should.

    1. Re:Doesn't name names by chthon · · Score: 1

      Yes, with B. Gates at the centre of Hell, with Steve Ballmer head first beig chewed upon. Nominations for two other persons?

    2. Re:Doesn't name names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you
      http://fashionmode20.blogspot.com/

    3. Re:Doesn't name names by Beige · · Score: 1

      I envisage Bill Gates being perpetually beset by a giant paperclip shaped demon - 'I see you're suffering eternal torment. Would you like more torment? YES/OK'

      --
      pandnotpian.org. The untruth will set you free!
  16. Software Inferno by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    (Burn, baby, burn) Software inferno!
    (Burn, baby, burn) Burn that mother down!

    1. Re:Software Inferno by hey! · · Score: 1

      Awesome! I didn't know that the Science Patrol made music videos.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. And the lusers' level? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the moment it would seem to be called Earth, or I am having a very long nightmare. It sounds interesting looking for a luser in hell, now knowing their best definition is that they are users/abusers of the database GOD.

  18. Retyping Dante by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sort of similar art installation http://www.retypingdante.com
    An analogy of people going to the renaissance of the internet. You could actually install a keylogger which would send all your keystrokes to purgatorio and on to paradiso. Using the keylogger the whole Divine Comedy was being retyped.

  19. Rob Bell is missing a few things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that he's so touchy feely that he freely asserts that which is not true. The Bible very much speaks of hell as a real place. It is my belief that it is God's desire that we do not go there, but that the choice is ours. Telling people there is no hell is like telling people you can fly if they walk off a cliff. Sure it sounds nice, but the actual consequence is rather severe.

    1. Re:Rob Bell is missing a few things by Empiric · · Score: 1

      It does speak of it, but it does not necessarily specify the "eternal hell if you don't believe" stance that some denominations have promulgated.

      There are several possibilities that are not at all easily dismissed by reference to scripture itself...

      1. That it is spoken of allegorically
      2. That it references "destruction of the soul" rather than "suffering of the soul" (per Christ's use of "destroy the soul in hell")
      3. That it is a temporary, not permanent state
      4. That it is the final dispensation of the truly evil, not simply on the basis of non-belief (otherwise a review of one's actions from the "Book of Life" seems rather superfluous)

      I would exercise extreme caution in stating that one -knows- what God will do, as this is in a sense us telling God what he has to do, on a judgment that is explicitly stated to be made by him in the future (the "Last Judgment"--not a "Show Trial"), but...

      I'd suggest taking a look at Conditionalism and its associated Annihilationism as stances that are quite harmonious with scripture, and address some arguments regarding "fairness"--one could say that atheists in general ultimately get exactly what they expect (and demand), per their own worldview.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:Rob Bell is missing a few things by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Telling people there is no hell is like telling people you can fly if they walk off a cliff.

      Except that it is much easier to establish the existence of cliffs than the existence of Hell.

    3. Re:Rob Bell is missing a few things by QilessQi · · Score: 1

      The Bible very much speaks of hell as a real place. It is my belief that it is God's desire that we do not go there, but that the choice is ours.

      Not unlike Camden, New Jersey.

    4. Re:Rob Bell is missing a few things by snookerdoodle · · Score: 1

      Which hell did you have in mind that is so plainly spoken of as a "real place"? Sheol (Hebrew for the grave)? Hades (Greek for the grave)? Tartarus (not forever, not for people)? Gehenna (trash heap outside Jerusalem)?

      Yes, those are all spoken of as "real places". None of them are plainly a "place where people go to live forever while they're being tortured", which is what "...much of what modern Christendom believes about hell..." and which is derived from Dante et al and not from the Bible.

  20. Talk about obscure... by hey! · · Score: 1

    How many people here (a) have read the Divine Comedy and (b) worked as a programmer? I'm sure I'm not the only one, but we've got to be a pretty small audience.

    Who do you think is the analog of Beatrice? Or Francesca da Rimini from Canto V?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Talk about obscure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have.
      Beatrice ... hmmm - maybe Linus or Theo? Wrong gender, I know, but we're all modern these days.

  21. Walk On By by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Walk by any Apple store. ... where you just see people using devices like like because they generally work. You can go in, or not, it's your choice.

    If you keep on walking you get to the Apple Haters. Now there's a religion, meaning they fervently believe in Apple being bad no matter what, and will not let you past until YOU believe it also.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Walk On By by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've seen far more organized iDiots than the anti group. The anti group is just fed up with the " it just works and is sooo worth the extra money, and if you don't agree you don't know tech" morons constantly worshiping steve jobs. Never have I seen a group of customers accept the blame willfully and defend the products flaws like they are a good thing like sheeple.

    2. Re:Walk On By by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, a true believer

  22. Sometimes it's desirable to write bad code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like when you have a manager that thinks you can be easily replaced. Then it becomes desireable to prove him wrong.

  23. Re:how many lashes do we get for using Clojure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or any functional approach in the face of Object Oriented Architect's stern remonishments?

    Academics in denial over the need to work with state vs. PHBs obsessed with classification and documentation? I'll pop the popcorn.

  24. And at the bottom of the final seventh circle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lies whoever has just imposed this crappy new /. design upon us.

    I mean, having half the width of the screen as whitespace and greyspace REALLY improves the readability guys..

  25. Does he even read what he writes? by lolococo · · Score: 1

    were strongly at variance with well-established beliefs ...

    Isn't that how most, if not all, scientific discoveries are made?

  26. You almost had it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sed 's/.NET componentized form/open languages/'

    Single-vendor, single-OS nonsense like .NET is never a path to sustainable infrastructure. You have to pry the vendor's fingers off your testicles and use languages and techniques that will be comprehensible to young people who haven't been born yet, or you'll wind up (at best) no more than a remora on some vendor's titanic success.

    Notice how Google, Amazon, eBay and Facebook all started by building infrastructure independent of single-vendor products like .NET? Yeah, there's a reason. It's called "Common Sense" but it ain't real common in the Executive Suite these days.

  27. RE: Group of 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > If my project was programmed using new age design methodology...

    After 27 years with a CS degree doing nothing but programming, the 'Group of 4' comment and the 4 aspects listed in this comment are spot on.
    There are too many children trying to write code that meets some academic pattern or assembling applications by using any third-party library that can do something they do not understand and cannot code themselves.

  28. then call me a heretic by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    CANTO 6 - HERESY: ...The countess explained that these chaotically traveling souls were strongly at variance with well-established beliefs

    Yeah, you know, I would rather be a heretic than be consumed by groupthink and the cargo-cult engineering it encourages.

    I consider the deadliest sin of engineering unnecessary complexity, which comes in its worst forms from inappropriate and poorly implemented generalization.

    I've seen a lot of this in the form of "frameworks" - especially homegrown ones - but also from faithful and meticulous application of GoF design patterns. Decompile SqlMetal for a canonical example.