What you call from scratch relies on libraries that are coded by someone else.
So you just assemble code others have made. If you make a custom http parser you rely on io,string and other libraries people have made for you.
Well if you code drivers, you almost code from scratch.
Programmers just assemble finished bits of code into something new as always. That is what programming is about.
This is always true, but the question is which level of abstraction you use.
But as time progresses things get more abstracted. For instance nobody codes their own c/c++ program that listen to http requests, but in the beginning you had to. Same for file upload and lot of stuff that is shrink wrapped. So a lot of work is finished, but the assembly takes time too. Wait a sec. That is what takes most of the time.
So my answer back is : will computer science academics get stupider and stupider every year because they ask the same question each year? And the answer to the question is still the same.
I think the act of creating a program could be art.
But the end result rarely look artsy. Really good
source code is simple and straight forward.
The art is in defining and breaking up a problem.
This could reduce the clutter the console-cables make in the livingroom. I hope we will get wireless video and sound protocols soon. Soon everything will go wireless, even the electricity and only the ones wearing the tinfoil hat will survive:)
They should be taken seriously because of the damage they could inflict, but when are they
going to stop whining and threatening and actually produce some substantial proof?
Well, they are commited to supporting the enterprise
version of Redhat, but can anyone explain me if there will be a difference between the Fedora and Enterprise line other than the support and speed of implementation?
For instance will all the Oracle optimization still be in Fedora?
He is probably reffering to the fact that the designers have to take the effects of quantum mecanics into account when they design chips. The didn't need to before. The newton mecanics describe the world pretty well for many purposes.
Wake up!
It's time that programmers wake up and smell the coffe. Our job is not to program original and intelligent code. Our job will be to make use of
the existing code and stich it up and make it play. Kind of like lego. The times when you had to code your template language is hopefully over. Some lucky people will program the infrastructure and the rest will just make use of it. The rest of us/them are without job now. So the old days will never come back.
It doesn't make economic sense that all companies make their own infrastructure.
It's like making your own office suite because the
one you use isn't quite right.
I think XSLT downright sucks as a presentation language. No date and number formatting. Sucky ordering. Difficult to implement logic.
If you have a structured XML file that suits your
presentation, then it is great. But that never happens to me. I have given up on XSLT as a presentation language. Tt can be great for simple transformations though.
It is all about the simple fact: use the
right tool for the right job. A fact most programmers don't understand.
The worst scenario is when the managment doesn't know enough about the technology they work with so they miss out on opportunities because the are so short sighted. Typical case is consultant companies that are so tuned into making money so they don't want to improve code reusability because that would give them "less" hours to bill the client. Instead they could improve the product so it can be reused, sell it cheaper, get more clients and cash in later!! That's stupid and shortsighted.
Anyway programmers are way fanatical about the things they make. For gods sake: if a client pays for a Lada don't try to make a Ferrari.
In my experience the best way to develop stable code is over time. There is no way you can ship something 100% bug free the first time. Deploy the code in the real environment and weed out the bugs one by one. So never expect to make something bug free. You can make something 95 % bug free if you plan and execute really good before you deploy, but the last 5% will cost you as much as the first 95% belive me. For some companies the last 5% is important enough to justify the cost (any rocket engineers here?).
The problem is that a test with 1 person is not the same with 10 dumb users doing totaly insane things to your program.
I think it is healthy with a balanced environment at work. I have seen that male dominated environments often are not as healthy as more balanced environments. With balanced I don't mean 50-50 but let's say 70-30. The mix makes the workplace a better place to work in because girls usually are not that geeky and they maintain the contact with normality when it comes to working hours and behaviour. Because of that people at least try to behave in a normal manner. And they see that it is possible to actually have a life. It can be very fun to work in a totaly geeky workplace, but I don't think it either good or fun in the long run (well, at least if you mind ending up as divorced at 40). So all you guys try to be nice to girls and treat them as buddies (-dirty jokes -farting) and maybe they will stay with us. You have to admit it: it is very frustating looking at just men the whole day.
Slashdot Mirror
What you call from scratch relies on libraries that are coded by someone else. So you just assemble code others have made. If you make a custom http parser you rely on io,string and other libraries people have made for you. Well if you code drivers, you almost code from scratch.
Programmers just assemble finished bits of code into something new as always. That is what programming is about. This is always true, but the question is which level of abstraction you use. But as time progresses things get more abstracted. For instance nobody codes their own c/c++ program that listen to http requests, but in the beginning you had to. Same for file upload and lot of stuff that is shrink wrapped. So a lot of work is finished, but the assembly takes time too. Wait a sec. That is what takes most of the time. So my answer back is : will computer science academics get stupider and stupider every year because they ask the same question each year? And the answer to the question is still the same.
I think the act of creating a program could be art.
But the end result rarely look artsy. Really good
source code is simple and straight forward.
The art is in defining and breaking up a problem.
Does anyone have a good candidate?
Link to discussion on TheServerSide.com
This could reduce the clutter the console-cables make in the livingroom. I hope we will get wireless video and sound protocols soon. Soon everything will go wireless, even the electricity and only the ones wearing the tinfoil hat will survive :)
They should be taken seriously because of the damage they could inflict, but when are they going to stop whining and threatening and actually produce some substantial proof?
For instance will all the Oracle optimization still be in Fedora?
He is probably reffering to the fact that the designers have to take the effects of quantum mecanics into account when they design chips. The didn't need to before. The newton mecanics describe the world pretty well for many purposes.
Wake up! It's time that programmers wake up and smell the coffe. Our job is not to program original and intelligent code. Our job will be to make use of the existing code and stich it up and make it play. Kind of like lego. The times when you had to code your template language is hopefully over. Some lucky people will program the infrastructure and the rest will just make use of it. The rest of us/them are without job now. So the old days will never come back. It doesn't make economic sense that all companies make their own infrastructure. It's like making your own office suite because the one you use isn't quite right.
If you have a structured XML file that suits your presentation, then it is great. But that never happens to me. I have given up on XSLT as a presentation language. Tt can be great for simple transformations though.
It is all about the simple fact: use the right tool for the right job. A fact most programmers don't understand.
The worst scenario is when the managment doesn't know enough about the technology they work with so they miss out on opportunities because the are so short sighted. Typical case is consultant companies that are so tuned into making money so they don't want to improve code reusability because that would give them "less" hours to bill the client. Instead they could improve the product so it can be reused, sell it cheaper, get more clients and cash in later!! That's stupid and shortsighted. Anyway programmers are way fanatical about the things they make. For gods sake: if a client pays for a Lada don't try to make a Ferrari.
In my experience the best way to develop stable code is over time. There is no way you can ship something 100% bug free the first time. Deploy the code in the real environment and weed out the bugs one by one. So never expect to make something bug free. You can make something 95 % bug free if you plan and execute really good before you deploy, but the last 5% will cost you as much as the first 95% belive me. For some companies the last 5% is important enough to justify the cost (any rocket engineers here?). The problem is that a test with 1 person is not the same with 10 dumb users doing totaly insane things to your program.
I think it is healthy with a balanced environment at work. I have seen that male dominated environments often are not as healthy as more balanced environments. With balanced I don't mean 50-50 but let's say 70-30. The mix makes the workplace a better place to work in because girls usually are not that geeky and they maintain the contact with normality when it comes to working hours and behaviour. Because of that people at least try to behave in a normal manner. And they see that it is possible to actually have a life. It can be very fun to work in a totaly geeky workplace, but I don't think it either good or fun in the long run (well, at least if you mind ending up as divorced at 40). So all you guys try to be nice to girls and treat them as buddies (-dirty jokes -farting) and maybe they will stay with us. You have to admit it: it is very frustating looking at just men the whole day.