I think that the arguments about unit tests often go too far in one direction or the other. People either treat unit tests as a religion, or they disavow them entirely.
People in the first group end up with a project full of tests where many are valid, many end up testing basic language functions, and many end up not helping due to oversimplication of behavior in the mocked interfaces.
People in the second group end up missing simple problems that could have been caught had they exercised their code.
Both groups waste a lot of time.
Perhaps this is what you were trying to say when you said "TDD guys are overzealous". I think there are other problems with TDD. Namely that you can only use it when you don't need to learn how to solve a problem as you go... Most interesting programs fall into that category.
Really, people need to use good testing judgement.
You don't mean to be presumptuous, but why don't they skip doing what they enjoy, and instead do what you think they should be enjoying?
If you didn't mean to be presumptuous, but knew it was sufficiently presumptuous to include the disclaimer, then why did you bother posting? So that we all know that you go outdoors? Next thing you know we'll be hearing about how you don't own a television either.
People should take a field trip to a slaughter house anyway. We're raising generations of pansys who can't handle common things without getting "squeamish". This wouldn't be the case if we were raising our kids in an environment where the process by which we obtain our nourishment were readily visible in their everyday lives.
As for your "economics alone" argument... They'd have to do more than come up with a viable meat replacement. They'd have to come up with replacements for the wide variety of meats that we enjoy consuming. You've already listed problems as virtues... "extremely lean"... "boneless"... Animal fat and bones are important ingredients in many of our favorite dishes. Yes, bones.
Yeah, it seems reasonable... Until somebody succeeds and they use it as the basis for their argument that we should stop raising livestock for the meat entirely.
I'm also talking about getting an optimal experience. I'm just saying that it's more practical to pick a display that performs well in your environment than it is to alter your environment for your display.
Placing lighting *behind* a flat panel display, especially one that is wall mounted isn't practical. If somebody in the room wants to read a book or something while you watch, it's even less practical. Better, at least from my perspective, to get a matte display which will perform better under those lighting conditions.
So are you saying you should adjust your lighting for your viewing, or buy a display that best suits how your environment is lit for other purposes.
For what I would guess is the vast majority of people, viewing isn't the sole activity that is taking place in the room the display is in. I don't care that a display looks better in the dark if it looks worse when there's lights on, because most of the time when I use the display I have the lights on.
Compromise in that it is equally unsatisfactory for all purposes?
It's too wide for 4:3 content, and too narrow for 16:9 and 2.35:1 content.
So who does it satisfy? As far as I can tell it only satisfies HDTV manufacturers. Since "W" monitors are unsuitable as HDTVs at the 16:10 aspect ratio, the cut-throat pricing of the PC monitor market doesn't cut into the margins on HDTV sales.
It's amusing to me that at least six people thought a massive government cover-up sufficient to silence scientists from informing us of impending doom was more likely than a 13 year old kid's school science project having the math wrong.
Occam's Razor proved wise again, yet I doubt that it will cause you or the moderators of your comment to reconsider the basis of your opinions of the people we have in power. It should.
You can have exactly as much fun at a school with a sciences program as at a liberal arts school, for one... I don't know why you would think otherwise.
When you get out of school is where the big difference comes. In the early years of your career, you'll make more money with a BS than with a BA. That means you'll have more fun after school, since a smaller percentage of your salary will go to paying for your education.
You *can* instantiate new Java objects, and run methods on them from a JSP, and pass form data as parameters. It's ugly, and non-obvious, and anybody who does it should be shot, but I've seen people who don't know better do it (and cleaned up after them, and saw to their removal from the project). It seemed like a reasonable thing to do to them, and they didn't know the right way to solve their problem.
I'm guessing that it was more work for these guys to actually take SQL from the client than it would have been to do it in a more secure fashion, even using PHP.
Their prices on long lengths of HDMI cables are actually downright reasonable. $38 for 24 gague, 50-feet in your choice of color and connector? That's better than Monoprice...
Why would you think anybody said you should care about their stockholders? Who said such a thing? Nobody. Nobody said you should care about their stockholders.
The point of the comment you initially replied to was that their stockholders should care about the payouts due to an increase in accidents sufficiently to oppose these devices and policies. For some reason, you attempted to derail the point in an effort to call attention to your opinion that you are a good driver and other people aren't.
There are only three possible explanations for why you would do such a thing: Either you have very poor reading comprehension, or your narcissism has led you to troll, or both.
I'm going to guess both, since it seems that you not only missed the point, but you assumed that I disagreed with you about who's fault it is when somebody rear-ends somebody else in this type of situation. The sad part is that you got modded up for it.
If you don't understand this type of attack, it is just as easy, and just as likely for this type of thing to happen in a Java backed web app. It's really easy, actually, to have these things creep in to an application if you've got programmers who don't consider security. You just wouldn't think of doing things that way because you know better.
Security features don't work if you don't know to (or why to) use them.
I disagree with "very difficult to do it the right way"... If you know what you're doing it's only moderately more work.
Java, Perl, and Python all make it easier to do it the wrong way than the right way too. Simply because the wrong way is less work than the right way in almost every aspect of these types of problems.
(The above paragraph is also true for performance)
The parent to your post is spot on. Don't blame the tool because the user is an idiot. The incompetent programmer from this article doesn't have any business doing web development in any other language either, regardless of how much "easier" that language makes it.
It's a huge consolation, then, when you have a wrecked car and whiplash that it wasn't your fault?
The fact of the matter is that people expect the light to be a certain length, and to be able to proceed through the light during that time. Bad drivers cause rear-end collisions when something changes the expected situation. It doesn't matter who's fault it is in the least, unless you are more interested in telling the world how much better you are than other people.
I don't have any idea what you mean by "nice try".
Now when you have a problem, the "tech support" at DFIStreet can tell you it's your power supply *and* that you have a counterfeit board, instead of admitting that DFI turns out shit product that doesn't go through QA.
Yet another holier-than-thou driver rant. You were so busy being full of yourself that you missed the point.
The point was that it doesn't matter who is at fault. The statistics clearly demonstrate that shorter yellows and red-light cameras cause more collisions. Regardless of who is at fault, the insurance companies pay out for those collisions, and that it would be logical to assume they would care about that.
Now, as for your off-topic assertions... If the yellow light is too short for you to either safely come to a complete stop before the line or pass into the intersection before the red when you are traveling at the posted speed limit no amount of attention will prevent an unsafe situation and an unfair traffic ticket. If you've been rear ended stopping at a short yellow (as I have), you might be less concerned with who is at fault and telling people that if they were better drivers there wouldn't be a problem, and more concerned with the inconvenience and potential life-threatening harm caused by greedy local governments shortening yellow lights to raise ticket revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the arguments about unit tests often go too far in one direction or the other. People either treat unit tests as a religion, or they disavow them entirely.
People in the first group end up with a project full of tests where many are valid, many end up testing basic language functions, and many end up not helping due to oversimplication of behavior in the mocked interfaces.
People in the second group end up missing simple problems that could have been caught had they exercised their code.
Both groups waste a lot of time.
Perhaps this is what you were trying to say when you said "TDD guys are overzealous". I think there are other problems with TDD. Namely that you can only use it when you don't need to learn how to solve a problem as you go... Most interesting programs fall into that category.
Really, people need to use good testing judgement.
You don't mean to be presumptuous, but why don't they skip doing what they enjoy, and instead do what you think they should be enjoying?
If you didn't mean to be presumptuous, but knew it was sufficiently presumptuous to include the disclaimer, then why did you bother posting? So that we all know that you go outdoors? Next thing you know we'll be hearing about how you don't own a television either.
I smell a hacker/cracker debate coming any moment now.
People should take a field trip to a slaughter house anyway. We're raising generations of pansys who can't handle common things without getting "squeamish". This wouldn't be the case if we were raising our kids in an environment where the process by which we obtain our nourishment were readily visible in their everyday lives.
As for your "economics alone" argument... They'd have to do more than come up with a viable meat replacement. They'd have to come up with replacements for the wide variety of meats that we enjoy consuming. You've already listed problems as virtues... "extremely lean"... "boneless"... Animal fat and bones are important ingredients in many of our favorite dishes. Yes, bones.
Yeah, it seems reasonable... Until somebody succeeds and they use it as the basis for their argument that we should stop raising livestock for the meat entirely.
I love when somebody gives me permission to do something that I already had the legal right to do anyway, but attaches caveats...
Under what made up law did they think they could stop people from creating 100% original content that works within their game rules?
I'm also talking about getting an optimal experience. I'm just saying that it's more practical to pick a display that performs well in your environment than it is to alter your environment for your display.
Placing lighting *behind* a flat panel display, especially one that is wall mounted isn't practical. If somebody in the room wants to read a book or something while you watch, it's even less practical. Better, at least from my perspective, to get a matte display which will perform better under those lighting conditions.
You might actually end up turning your matte screen into a glossy one with a 3000 grit cloth...
So are you saying you should adjust your lighting for your viewing, or buy a display that best suits how your environment is lit for other purposes.
For what I would guess is the vast majority of people, viewing isn't the sole activity that is taking place in the room the display is in. I don't care that a display looks better in the dark if it looks worse when there's lights on, because most of the time when I use the display I have the lights on.
Compromise in that it is equally unsatisfactory for all purposes?
It's too wide for 4:3 content, and too narrow for 16:9 and 2.35:1 content.
So who does it satisfy? As far as I can tell it only satisfies HDTV manufacturers. Since "W" monitors are unsuitable as HDTVs at the 16:10 aspect ratio, the cut-throat pricing of the PC monitor market doesn't cut into the margins on HDTV sales.
Is it the years of using Microsoft/Dell products that has conditioned you to not send it in for repair yet?
Most people don't have that experience with their MacBook Pro. Yours is obviously broken. You should get it fixed.
Read it again. It doesn't say that at all.
It's amusing to me that at least six people thought a massive government cover-up sufficient to silence scientists from informing us of impending doom was more likely than a 13 year old kid's school science project having the math wrong.
Occam's Razor proved wise again, yet I doubt that it will cause you or the moderators of your comment to reconsider the basis of your opinions of the people we have in power. It should.
You're, of course, totally full of crap.
You can have exactly as much fun at a school with a sciences program as at a liberal arts school, for one... I don't know why you would think otherwise.
When you get out of school is where the big difference comes. In the early years of your career, you'll make more money with a BS than with a BA. That means you'll have more fun after school, since a smaller percentage of your salary will go to paying for your education.
You *can* instantiate new Java objects, and run methods on them from a JSP, and pass form data as parameters. It's ugly, and non-obvious, and anybody who does it should be shot, but I've seen people who don't know better do it (and cleaned up after them, and saw to their removal from the project). It seemed like a reasonable thing to do to them, and they didn't know the right way to solve their problem.
I'm guessing that it was more work for these guys to actually take SQL from the client than it would have been to do it in a more secure fashion, even using PHP.
Their prices on long lengths of HDMI cables are actually downright reasonable. $38 for 24 gague, 50-feet in your choice of color and connector? That's better than Monoprice...
*sigh*
Why would you think anybody said you should care about their stockholders? Who said such a thing? Nobody. Nobody said you should care about their stockholders.
The point of the comment you initially replied to was that their stockholders should care about the payouts due to an increase in accidents sufficiently to oppose these devices and policies. For some reason, you attempted to derail the point in an effort to call attention to your opinion that you are a good driver and other people aren't.
There are only three possible explanations for why you would do such a thing: Either you have very poor reading comprehension, or your narcissism has led you to troll, or both.
I'm going to guess both, since it seems that you not only missed the point, but you assumed that I disagreed with you about who's fault it is when somebody rear-ends somebody else in this type of situation. The sad part is that you got modded up for it.
If you don't understand this type of attack, it is just as easy, and just as likely for this type of thing to happen in a Java backed web app. It's really easy, actually, to have these things creep in to an application if you've got programmers who don't consider security. You just wouldn't think of doing things that way because you know better.
Security features don't work if you don't know to (or why to) use them.
I disagree with "very difficult to do it the right way"... If you know what you're doing it's only moderately more work.
Java, Perl, and Python all make it easier to do it the wrong way than the right way too. Simply because the wrong way is less work than the right way in almost every aspect of these types of problems.
(The above paragraph is also true for performance)
The parent to your post is spot on. Don't blame the tool because the user is an idiot. The incompetent programmer from this article doesn't have any business doing web development in any other language either, regardless of how much "easier" that language makes it.
It's a huge consolation, then, when you have a wrecked car and whiplash that it wasn't your fault?
The fact of the matter is that people expect the light to be a certain length, and to be able to proceed through the light during that time. Bad drivers cause rear-end collisions when something changes the expected situation. It doesn't matter who's fault it is in the least, unless you are more interested in telling the world how much better you are than other people.
I don't have any idea what you mean by "nice try".
Their stockholders would care, of course. That was the whole point. You did read my original post before replying, didn't you?
Now when you have a problem, the "tech support" at DFIStreet can tell you it's your power supply *and* that you have a counterfeit board, instead of admitting that DFI turns out shit product that doesn't go through QA.
Yet another holier-than-thou driver rant. You were so busy being full of yourself that you missed the point.
The point was that it doesn't matter who is at fault. The statistics clearly demonstrate that shorter yellows and red-light cameras cause more collisions. Regardless of who is at fault, the insurance companies pay out for those collisions, and that it would be logical to assume they would care about that.
Now, as for your off-topic assertions... If the yellow light is too short for you to either safely come to a complete stop before the line or pass into the intersection before the red when you are traveling at the posted speed limit no amount of attention will prevent an unsafe situation and an unfair traffic ticket. If you've been rear ended stopping at a short yellow (as I have), you might be less concerned with who is at fault and telling people that if they were better drivers there wouldn't be a problem, and more concerned with the inconvenience and potential life-threatening harm caused by greedy local governments shortening yellow lights to raise ticket revenue.
How does that have any impact on whether or not an insurance company has to pay for the damage or not?
Oh, wait. It doesn't. You just wanted to post a holier-than-thou rant about driving.