I think that paying for your tuition buys you the opportunity for education, and nothing more. As you say. If some teacher is denying you your opportunity for a proper education because they are creating unreasonable assignments, then that teacher should be reprimanded, or at least forced to change their coursework. The point is to lay out attainable goals. Is 10 deployed exploits unreasonable? Its hard to say. I mean, a semester goes for about 5 months. You would have to find a couple of exploits per month. Or, 1 exploit every two weeks. So, lets assume you spend 15 hours every two weeks hunting exploits (15 hours / exploit). Could a professional trained in the art of finding security holes find 10 exploits in 150 man hours of work? It isn't unreasonable. I don't know if you have to provide an exploit, or just find a security hole. Thats like three weeks of work. A professional security researcher could probably do that. I could probably do a bit less than that. A student new to searching through C code and possibly unfamiliar with the nuance of C and where to look for holes to begin with? I dunno, its really straining whats reasonable IMHO.
I think you are just choosing to view the 90's through rose colored glasses. Humanity has known great conflict for years and years. I don't really think the conflict was any less in the 90's, honestly. I think the dotcom economy helped create this false bubble in America that extended well beyond the tech economy. It gave everyone the impression that life was good and all was right with the world when the reality is we just never bothered looking out at the rest of the world because we were doing so well
No no, then you scan each slide and write a program to change the image on the screen every 1/30th of a second and you display the digital with a light projection device! Think of the motion!
I suppose thats just a decision you have to make for yourself. But think really hard about what your walking away from. Most people would kill to be in America, blemishes and all.
Bye Bye. Enjoy your new country. Post back here in a few years and let us know about your immigration experience. Make sure you renounce your American citizenship completely so you can't come back.
Think FCC and the fines they levy for swear words and Janet Jackson's incident. I would say that represents the majority of America or there would have been outrage at the fines;)
You can't get a general answer for this question and get a very good response. This is a societal question more than it is a philisophical one. If one society believes that female breasts are generally sexually explicit regardless of the context and it makes them somewhat taboo to discuss or photograph, then it becomes so.
WHereas, if you take a society that believes in complete nudity and this society is raised on this culture then full nudity is not as arousing to the average person in this society, whereas in a more conservative society the same full nudity could be considered quite explicit.
I think its pretty clear in America where society draws the line.
At an individual level it amounts to preference and taste, and thus can't be quantified to a general rule. Thus we use society as our yard stick for these types of social issues.
Precisely. I really hate the social issues as they are right now with Bushes administration. I hate Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheyney, the Patriot Act and every little inch worming into my private life. Every little removal of my privacy and ability to be "free".
But social issues mean absolutely nothing if we don't have essential freedom to do as we see fit and have autonomy and responsibility for ourselves and the general welfare of the population at large (but NO specific individuals should benefit directly).
This is where I have to pick the side that I think will keep us a free and autonomous society (as much as we have ever been). Kerry has yet to convince me he can do that (neither has bush either, but at least bush has taken some kind of stand and been more consistent). That leaves me with quite dismal prospects as a voter who is to the right yet quite libertarian. I am still undecided.
If by your judgement voting for bush is throwing core values of conservatism down the toilet then voting for Kerry is much worse than that (to a true conservative who believes in less of a role for government in the lives of Americans).
Fair Use Tax, Privatized SS (out of govts hands in any tangible form), etc. Good luck getting these passed under a dems watch
I try and create practical rules that my development team will actually follow. Asking for thought in variable names with a few lines of comments every "block" of code gets followed well. Combined with JavaDocs it creates a damn near self documenting system.
If you asked for more than that A.) The comments are more likely to be misleading (which is worse than no comment). and B.) Won't get done anyway.
Note: I define a "block" of code as anything you could basically describe in 4-6 english language sentences. Any line of code that does something hack-ish or does something with non obvious effects also gets a comment, that is about it. It works well. No one I have seen has to much trouble following code commented in this manner:)
There is no need to comment each and every line of code. I believe in commenting that gives a "big picture" overview of blocks of code. Commenting every line is redundant if you know whats happening in a 20 line block. So, you may not need to comment THAT line. But you should at least comment somewhere above that block describing what is going to happen. And in using concise and easy to understand variable naming the block should be quite easy to understand given the context provided by the big picture comment.
Well, I think you could classify Synchronize and stabilize as an agile process by most peoples measuring sticks. They are promoting many of the same tenets I do when I lead development teams. Ubiquitos automation of builds with integrated unit testing that can pre-empt the build process etc. Continuous integration. Improved communication, debugging and testing throughout, not just at the end etc.
I would have to agree with you. As one other pointed out here Microsofts development process probably COULD be classified as an agile process.
Call it synchronize and stabilize, or an agile process, or whatever. The basic ideas of improving the software development process are moving in the that general direction. Processes that are more flexible and learn from mistakes. Processes that are self aware of where they are and not just some vague well.. "we think its all integrated, we are testing now!". According to the little blurb I just read the MS process follows several tenets of agile and smart development. Regularly integrating things, increased communication, increased response to change (which is the only constant in software), enforced automation of building (which includes enforced automation of unit testing). When your build fails due to a test failing you get yelled at etc. And since everyone is more involved in the process it puts you into the hot seat, just for a unit test or two that could have failed.
So.. there IS no silver bullet, ever. But there is always a way to improve things. To make developers more aware of the things important to their project (Security, time to market). To make managers more aware of how to keep the project going, avoid death matches, improve communication etc. Its a large and pervasive process and based on what im hearing MS is moving in the right direction (No one can predict the future very accurately):)
I think you mis-estimate how hard it is to manage projects with the complexity of Internet Explorer. Even teams of really good developers with noe one "non-expert" can be brought down by the integration trap. It can probably all be led back to the Waterfall development paradigm where you do things in huge chunks: "Requirements, Design, Implement, Integrate, Pray, Test". Each of those is done as a discreet phase. Any devleopment process still following that basic model tends to fall apart somewhere around Integrate. Even with better development paradigms such as agile development there are considerable challenges in integrating something so large as IE.
But that *IS* the point of Agile development, to ensure that every step of the way things are working toghether smoothly. The basic point is regardless of the paradigm IE is a big project with many different components requiring a high degree of integration. A key problem with many different components that are highly integrated is the fact that these components tend to "trust" each other to much. Meaning they just assume this component is friendly. If all integrated components were a little less trusting I think software as large and as complex as IE could be more secure.
This is just a guess, I don't know much about internal Microsoft culture. I have however seen security problems of this scale in projects I have cleaned up and worked on and the problems stem from the exact problems I describe. So its reasonable to assume that somewhere along the way MS has made the same mistakes everyone else does in the software world. Just because they have LOTS of smart people doesn't mean they are any better at managing software processes. Just look at what they are doing with the LongHorn requirements:)
I do believe that is the parent of your posts point. He is looking at it from a B2B perspective. Bad IT practice has directly hurt his company, even though it was not his company's bad practice.
The trend I've seen over the last two or three years is that techies are increasingly thinking of themselves as victims. Perhaps this is because the IT industry is maturing, and the jobs that were once seen as the exclusive domain of Big Brains are now seen as just another part of the Information Economy.
I could not disagree more with this statement as it relates to software development to a great extent, and IT in general to a general extent. I have seen such great mis-management of software projects and information technology that it is not even funny. I have seen no downward trend in this mis-management. As long as this exists, software projects will fail and IT staff will be forced to implement non-optimal solutions.
In many of these cases management expects IT staff to make up for bad mid to upper management decisions. In my opinion that DOES make technical staff a victim of bad management. When you start hearing things like 90% of software projects succeed due to implmentation of agile development methodologies and an overall awareness of risk management in software development you will see programmers feeling less like they are victims. But when software starts failing management starts flailing, and the programmers get blamed. (Though programmers blame management, management sits higher in the org tree so they usually win these type battles).
Well, typically you want senior development staff to write the standards. If you pick senior staff (sucha s your architects or what not) to write the standard it works much better. You get people who code day in and day out to pick what works best for a particular project (with perhaps some company standard that each projects starts out with and modifies as is needed, if the firm is big enough to warrant it).
I don't know of a programming language out there that you can't abuse and torture and write unreadable code. Its simple, in any environment where more power is put in the hand of developers the more care must be taken. With assembly you can do ANYTHING, and fast, but its hard to write structured code. The point is that you can still write a program that can do just about anything your mind can conceive (that can be executed by todays computers). With the ability to write any program comes an inherent degree of complexity. If you don't manage the complexity your project will fail.
So, any one language that is "just" right for one project may not be "just" right for another project. As it is Java does not give a lot of latitutde in how you can do a great many things. For the rest there are coding standards. If standards are not followed them Team 1 may not understand Team 2's code as easily. It is managements job to educate and get everyone happy with the idea of a standard (perhaps someone doesn't like THIS standard, but they must at least be made to agree upon it regardless). Thats why programmers who work for money are paid, they are supposed to do what they are told:)
For the record I have never had any trouble (ultimately) getting my coding standards followed. It may take some discussion and tweaking to get everyone happy, but thats what being a senior staff developer is all about: mentoring, educating, and writing good code;)
Doesn't mean a large project has to USE all of these features. There are plenty of different ways to accomplish a particular task in ANY programming language. Just because a way exists doesn't mean a project can't standardize on a particular method. Its pretty easy problemto solve and it goes something like this: "Please see Chapter 3, Section 8 of the project coding style manual for information on using import aliasing. Thanks".
The same rules apply were you to use Perl on a large scale project. It takes a degree of discipline to ensure everything gets done the right way. Regardless of the language it is ultimately a people and management problem:)
These days you don't even need a cross over cable with a lot of NICs. My Laptop's NIC automatically detects if it is a cross over cable or not. So if even one PC has this feature you can use a standard cable:)
Its different.. because there is no barrier to entry for the Internet media folks.
The most absolute crazy wack-jobs (extreme left, extreme right) out there still get to have a blog of their own:-D As it should be, who else will entertain us? Seriously though, people with a voice that wouldn't get heard as media tends to avoid extremists in most cases. (regardles sof which way the media leans, they avoid the extremes of either side when they can)
There are PLENTY of information security white hats that are just as talented, if not more talented, than the black hats. If we are truly talking about hiring a "black hat cracker". Even if they were exceptionally skilled it would depend on the individual.
They commited a computer crime. That is a liability, not an asset. All in all their benefits as a skilled IT professional would have to outweigh their liabilities (being busted for a computer crime). It is a factor that goes into the equation. I would say that in most cases it would be enough to lean me towards not hiring them. I think its a pretty serious thing to hack someone elses system. There are PLENTY of ways to make a name for yourself in a white hat way. Writing papers, studying info sec and staying on top of the field and becoming a noted voice in the communities is one. Ultimately if you need negative publicity to be known (and or hired) your just being lazy:)
Though, think about the thousands of little Perl scripts that do this and that, each one using some little syntax trick or another. The end result is that to REALLY understand all the scripts out there you have to basically learn all of the dialects of Perl. Its like learning several child languages that are all a part of this twisted parent language. It kills me to have to remember syntax rules like that.
Compare that to almost any python script out there. The syntax is the same, the program can still "do it more than one way", but it does it with a more clear syntax that is easier to follow. I think the idea that there is more than one way to do it is true for just about any programming language. There are the preferred methods, but nothing is stopping you from coding your own library or method of performing this task or that.
Its the same reason LISP is a great academic language but not a commercial success, even though it is so very powerful to those that can wield it. You can basically re-define the meaning of everything you see, and often its encouraged as you are basically writing source code that is the parse tree of the program! (I Know this isn't true for Perl, but it feels the same way, the language can be varied so much maintaining disparate and differeing scripts can be difficult). Data, oh thats all a part of the parse-tree/program. XML? Bah, the Lisp guys invented that with the S-Expression etc.;)
Now then, you could still use Perl with complete efficiency in a project that standardized on various language constructs, but you WOULD have to standardize or you would be in a maintenance and integration hell:)
I just think its much better to have a powerful and easy to use language that doesn't introduce artificial hurdles like syntax constructs that can easily be more understandable in any other programming language. Anyway, I will stop prattling. I know that people who like Perl will stay using Perl because they did bother to learn all of the Arcane syntax and now they feel they should inflict their sick and twisted knowledge on the rest of the world;););) (Just kidding).
This is kind of like saying that programmers who use design patterns aren't as good as the programmers who solve a problem the "hard way" basically reinventing a design pattern.
I heavily use design patterns when dealing with standard modeling and design problems. I always try to think about design patterns in context. Always trying to apply a design pattern can be a harm, so it is good to think about the problem "outside of the box" as well. A more elegant pattern or solution may be different from the known set of standard patterns. Typically, I have seen that MOST problems encountered are solved by a design pattern or some variant. That puts a great deal of stock in building upon the knowledge of others and adding your unique thoughts and ideas to it.
Its all about critical thought based on the input material. If your input material consists of a book + other literary analysis you wont have as much to add, but what you do add can still be at a "university" level. Thoughtful with good comparison to relevant subject matter.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that paying for your tuition buys you the opportunity for education, and nothing more. As you say. If some teacher is denying you your opportunity for a proper education because they are creating unreasonable assignments, then that teacher should be reprimanded, or at least forced to change their coursework. The point is to lay out attainable goals. Is 10 deployed exploits unreasonable? Its hard to say. I mean, a semester goes for about 5 months. You would have to find a couple of exploits per month. Or, 1 exploit every two weeks. So, lets assume you spend 15 hours every two weeks hunting exploits (15 hours / exploit). Could a professional trained in the art of finding security holes find 10 exploits in 150 man hours of work? It isn't unreasonable. I don't know if you have to provide an exploit, or just find a security hole. Thats like three weeks of work. A professional security researcher could probably do that. I could probably do a bit less than that. A student new to searching through C code and possibly unfamiliar with the nuance of C and where to look for holes to begin with? I dunno, its really straining whats reasonable IMHO.
Jeremy
I do believe he means if it were a solar panel, not a sun dial, it would generate enough wattage to power lots of digital watches.
Jeremy
I think you are just choosing to view the 90's through rose colored glasses. Humanity has known great conflict for years and years. I don't really think the conflict was any less in the 90's, honestly. I think the dotcom economy helped create this false bubble in America that extended well beyond the tech economy. It gave everyone the impression that life was good and all was right with the world when the reality is we just never bothered looking out at the rest of the world because we were doing so well
Jeremy
No no, then you scan each slide and write a program to change the image on the screen every 1/30th of a second and you display the digital with a light projection device! Think of the motion!
Jeremy
I suppose thats just a decision you have to make for yourself. But think really hard about what your walking away from. Most people would kill to be in America, blemishes and all.
Jeremy
Bye Bye. Enjoy your new country. Post back here in a few years and let us know about your immigration experience. Make sure you renounce your American citizenship completely so you can't come back.
Thanks
Jeremy
Think FCC and the fines they levy for swear words and Janet Jackson's incident. I would say that represents the majority of America or there would have been outrage at the fines ;)
Jeremy
You can't get a general answer for this question and get a very good response. This is a societal question more than it is a philisophical one. If one society believes that female breasts are generally sexually explicit regardless of the context and it makes them somewhat taboo to discuss or photograph, then it becomes so.
WHereas, if you take a society that believes in complete nudity and this society is raised on this culture then full nudity is not as arousing to the average person in this society, whereas in a more conservative society the same full nudity could be considered quite explicit.
I think its pretty clear in America where society draws the line.
At an individual level it amounts to preference and taste, and thus can't be quantified to a general rule. Thus we use society as our yard stick for these types of social issues.
Jeremy
Precisely. I really hate the social issues as they are right now with Bushes administration. I hate Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Cheyney, the Patriot Act and every little inch worming into my private life. Every little removal of my privacy and ability to be "free".
But social issues mean absolutely nothing if we don't have essential freedom to do as we see fit and have autonomy and responsibility for ourselves and the general welfare of the population at large (but NO specific individuals should benefit directly).
This is where I have to pick the side that I think will keep us a free and autonomous society (as much as we have ever been). Kerry has yet to convince me he can do that (neither has bush either, but at least bush has taken some kind of stand and been more consistent). That leaves me with quite dismal prospects as a voter who is to the right yet quite libertarian. I am still undecided.
Jeremy
If by your judgement voting for bush is throwing core values of conservatism down the toilet then voting for Kerry is much worse than that (to a true conservative who believes in less of a role for government in the lives of Americans).
Fair Use Tax, Privatized SS (out of govts hands in any tangible form), etc. Good luck getting these passed under a dems watch
Jeremy
Doh ;-\
:)
I try and create practical rules that my development team will actually follow. Asking for thought in variable names with a few lines of comments every "block" of code gets followed well. Combined with JavaDocs it creates a damn near self documenting system.
If you asked for more than that A.) The comments are more likely to be misleading (which is worse than no comment). and B.) Won't get done anyway.
Note: I define a "block" of code as anything you could basically describe in 4-6 english language sentences. Any line of code that does something hack-ish or does something with non obvious effects also gets a comment, that is about it. It works well. No one I have seen has to much trouble following code commented in this manner
Jeremy
There is no need to comment each and every line of code. I believe in commenting that gives a "big picture" overview of blocks of code. Commenting every line is redundant if you know whats happening in a 20 line block. So, you may not need to comment THAT line. But you should at least comment somewhere above that block describing what is going to happen. And in using concise and easy to understand variable naming the block should be quite easy to understand given the context provided by the big picture comment.
Jeremy
Well, I think you could classify Synchronize and stabilize as an agile process by most peoples measuring sticks. They are promoting many of the same tenets I do when I lead development teams. Ubiquitos automation of builds with integrated unit testing that can pre-empt the build process etc. Continuous integration. Improved communication, debugging and testing throughout, not just at the end etc.
Jeremy
I would have to agree with you. As one other pointed out here Microsofts development process probably COULD be classified as an agile process.
:)
Call it synchronize and stabilize, or an agile process, or whatever. The basic ideas of improving the software development process are moving in the that general direction. Processes that are more flexible and learn from mistakes. Processes that are self aware of where they are and not just some vague well.. "we think its all integrated, we are testing now!". According to the little blurb I just read the MS process follows several tenets of agile and smart development. Regularly integrating things, increased communication, increased response to change (which is the only constant in software), enforced automation of building (which includes enforced automation of unit testing). When your build fails due to a test failing you get yelled at etc. And since everyone is more involved in the process it puts you into the hot seat, just for a unit test or two that could have failed.
So.. there IS no silver bullet, ever. But there is always a way to improve things. To make developers more aware of the things important to their project (Security, time to market). To make managers more aware of how to keep the project going, avoid death matches, improve communication etc. Its a large and pervasive process and based on what im hearing MS is moving in the right direction (No one can predict the future very accurately)
Jeremy
I think you mis-estimate how hard it is to manage projects with the complexity of Internet Explorer. Even teams of really good developers with noe one "non-expert" can be brought down by the integration trap. It can probably all be led back to the Waterfall development paradigm where you do things in huge chunks: "Requirements, Design, Implement, Integrate, Pray, Test". Each of those is done as a discreet phase. Any devleopment process still following that basic model tends to fall apart somewhere around Integrate. Even with better development paradigms such as agile development there are considerable challenges in integrating something so large as IE.
:)
But that *IS* the point of Agile development, to ensure that every step of the way things are working toghether smoothly. The basic point is regardless of the paradigm IE is a big project with many different components requiring a high degree of integration. A key problem with many different components that are highly integrated is the fact that these components tend to "trust" each other to much. Meaning they just assume this component is friendly. If all integrated components were a little less trusting I think software as large and as complex as IE could be more secure.
This is just a guess, I don't know much about internal Microsoft culture. I have however seen security problems of this scale in projects I have cleaned up and worked on and the problems stem from the exact problems I describe. So its reasonable to assume that somewhere along the way MS has made the same mistakes everyone else does in the software world. Just because they have LOTS of smart people doesn't mean they are any better at managing software processes. Just look at what they are doing with the LongHorn requirements
Jeremy
I do believe that is the parent of your posts point. He is looking at it from a B2B perspective. Bad IT practice has directly hurt his company, even though it was not his company's bad practice.
Jeremy
The trend I've seen over the last two or three years is that techies are increasingly thinking of themselves as victims. Perhaps this is because the IT industry is maturing, and the jobs that were once seen as the exclusive domain of Big Brains are now seen as just another part of the Information Economy.
I could not disagree more with this statement as it relates to software development to a great extent, and IT in general to a general extent. I have seen such great mis-management of software projects and information technology that it is not even funny. I have seen no downward trend in this mis-management. As long as this exists, software projects will fail and IT staff will be forced to implement non-optimal solutions.
In many of these cases management expects IT staff to make up for bad mid to upper management decisions. In my opinion that DOES make technical staff a victim of bad management. When you start hearing things like 90% of software projects succeed due to implmentation of agile development methodologies and an overall awareness of risk management in software development you will see programmers feeling less like they are victims. But when software starts failing management starts flailing, and the programmers get blamed. (Though programmers blame management, management sits higher in the org tree so they usually win these type battles).
Jeremy
Well, typically you want senior development staff to write the standards. If you pick senior staff (sucha s your architects or what not) to write the standard it works much better. You get people who code day in and day out to pick what works best for a particular project (with perhaps some company standard that each projects starts out with and modifies as is needed, if the firm is big enough to warrant it).
:)
;)
I don't know of a programming language out there that you can't abuse and torture and write unreadable code. Its simple, in any environment where more power is put in the hand of developers the more care must be taken. With assembly you can do ANYTHING, and fast, but its hard to write structured code. The point is that you can still write a program that can do just about anything your mind can conceive (that can be executed by todays computers). With the ability to write any program comes an inherent degree of complexity. If you don't manage the complexity your project will fail.
So, any one language that is "just" right for one project may not be "just" right for another project. As it is Java does not give a lot of latitutde in how you can do a great many things. For the rest there are coding standards. If standards are not followed them Team 1 may not understand Team 2's code as easily. It is managements job to educate and get everyone happy with the idea of a standard (perhaps someone doesn't like THIS standard, but they must at least be made to agree upon it regardless). Thats why programmers who work for money are paid, they are supposed to do what they are told
For the record I have never had any trouble (ultimately) getting my coding standards followed. It may take some discussion and tweaking to get everyone happy, but thats what being a senior staff developer is all about: mentoring, educating, and writing good code
Jeremy
Hmmn,
:)
Doesn't mean a large project has to USE all of these features. There are plenty of different ways to accomplish a particular task in ANY programming language. Just because a way exists doesn't mean a project can't standardize on a particular method. Its pretty easy problemto solve and it goes something like this: "Please see Chapter 3, Section 8 of the project coding style manual for information on using import aliasing. Thanks".
The same rules apply were you to use Perl on a large scale project. It takes a degree of discipline to ensure everything gets done the right way. Regardless of the language it is ultimately a people and management problem
Jeremy
These days you don't even need a cross over cable with a lot of NICs. My Laptop's NIC automatically detects if it is a cross over cable or not. So if even one PC has this feature you can use a standard cable :)
Jeremy
Its different.. because there is no barrier to entry for the Internet media folks.
:-D As it should be, who else will entertain us? Seriously though, people with a voice that wouldn't get heard as media tends to avoid extremists in most cases. (regardles sof which way the media leans, they avoid the extremes of either side when they can)
The most absolute crazy wack-jobs (extreme left, extreme right) out there still get to have a blog of their own
Jeremy
There are PLENTY of information security white hats that are just as talented, if not more talented, than the black hats. If we are truly talking about hiring a "black hat cracker". Even if they were exceptionally skilled it would depend on the individual.
:)
They commited a computer crime. That is a liability, not an asset. All in all their benefits as a skilled IT professional would have to outweigh their liabilities (being busted for a computer crime). It is a factor that goes into the equation. I would say that in most cases it would be enough to lean me towards not hiring them. I think its a pretty serious thing to hack someone elses system. There are PLENTY of ways to make a name for yourself in a white hat way. Writing papers, studying info sec and staying on top of the field and becoming a noted voice in the communities is one. Ultimately if you need negative publicity to be known (and or hired) your just being lazy
Jeremy
Though, think about the thousands of little Perl scripts that do this and that, each one using some little syntax trick or another. The end result is that to REALLY understand all the scripts out there you have to basically learn all of the dialects of Perl. Its like learning several child languages that are all a part of this twisted parent language. It kills me to have to remember syntax rules like that.
;)
:)
;););) (Just kidding).
Compare that to almost any python script out there. The syntax is the same, the program can still "do it more than one way", but it does it with a more clear syntax that is easier to follow. I think the idea that there is more than one way to do it is true for just about any programming language. There are the preferred methods, but nothing is stopping you from coding your own library or method of performing this task or that.
Its the same reason LISP is a great academic language but not a commercial success, even though it is so very powerful to those that can wield it. You can basically re-define the meaning of everything you see, and often its encouraged as you are basically writing source code that is the parse tree of the program! (I Know this isn't true for Perl, but it feels the same way, the language can be varied so much maintaining disparate and differeing scripts can be difficult). Data, oh thats all a part of the parse-tree/program. XML? Bah, the Lisp guys invented that with the S-Expression etc.
Now then, you could still use Perl with complete efficiency in a project that standardized on various language constructs, but you WOULD have to standardize or you would be in a maintenance and integration hell
I just think its much better to have a powerful and easy to use language that doesn't introduce artificial hurdles like syntax constructs that can easily be more understandable in any other programming language. Anyway, I will stop prattling. I know that people who like Perl will stay using Perl because they did bother to learn all of the Arcane syntax and now they feel they should inflict their sick and twisted knowledge on the rest of the world
Jeremy
Make sure you are showing Mem Usage *AND* VM Size. Add those up.
Jeremy
This is kind of like saying that programmers who use design patterns aren't as good as the programmers who solve a problem the "hard way" basically reinventing a design pattern.
I heavily use design patterns when dealing with standard modeling and design problems. I always try to think about design patterns in context. Always trying to apply a design pattern can be a harm, so it is good to think about the problem "outside of the box" as well. A more elegant pattern or solution may be different from the known set of standard patterns. Typically, I have seen that MOST problems encountered are solved by a design pattern or some variant. That puts a great deal of stock in building upon the knowledge of others and adding your unique thoughts and ideas to it.
Its all about critical thought based on the input material. If your input material consists of a book + other literary analysis you wont have as much to add, but what you do add can still be at a "university" level. Thoughtful with good comparison to relevant subject matter.
Anyhow, something to think on.
Jeremy