I _am_ a programmer, and what you suggest is also the way I prefer to write code, only it's perhaps slightly less experimental in my case and I don't have to reach for the language reference manual quite so often.
This is pretty much what my uncle (a retired civil engineer) did. He always says that a good engineer is a bloke who can design a building that almost falls over.
A bloke I used to work for (he wasn't exactly an IT person, but he was pretty cluey) used to get two or three of us to evaluate every proposal that came over his desk, then combine our impressions with his own. Unfortunately this often had to be done at extremely short notice ("Here, read these five 40 page documents and provide me with your assessment of them by close of business today. I've got a meeting at 8am tomorrow.") because he'd only just got the documents himself.
I wouldn't say this bloke was doing his job poorly, btw.
Think Turing Machine (notions of computability) - looked like pretty abstruse mathematical logic in 1930 (or whenever) but happens to be the basis of general-purpose computers. This one actually paid off pretty quickly.
In Adelaide, where I live, houses built more than, say, 70 years ago have problems with salt-damp (well, the brick and stone ones do). However, if you fix that they're pretty solid. The houses built between 1920 and about 1940 are pretty good, generally (although they're often not aesthetically outstanding). The ones built immediately after WW2, up 'til the mid 1950's, are absolutely atrocious _and_ as ugly as a hat full of arseholes. The ones built up to about 1970 are equally ugly, but rather better constructed, because the building standards started being enforced. From then on, it's all downhill. Even though many of them are quite attractive and extremely comfortable, they are out-of-style in about 5 years, and they are not built to last.
I won't comment on commercial buildings, as I don't care for anything that's more than about 4 storeys high.
LOL. If you're using smack, the only thing you're likely to be supporting is your own habit. You'll certainly be incapable of too much abstract thought.
This isn't strictly true. The library at one of my previous employers acquired (I'm sure quite legally) a photocopy of a book that was out of print from another library.
The biggest delusion is that anyone'd bother to steal most of their content. I'd actually like to sue the buggers for stealing the odd 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back.
> The bottom line is the IT department will really never make a company any money.
This actually depends on your industry. I work for an oil and gas exploration and production company, and IT makes us shitloads (although this is not necessarily appreciated all the way up the food chain). The oil industry generally is able to economically exploit reserves that would not have even been found without software allowing geoscientists to interpret 3D seismic surveys and the high-end graphics workstations it runs on (we're a Sun shop).
> It is demeaning for a highly skilled programmer to be stuck writing glue code to glue two poorly written, heterogenous open source apps together.
It's even worse writing glue code to make poorly-written, heterogenous proprietry apps work together. Particularly when you are also working with a heterogenous hardware/os environment.
No, mathematics isn't a science, nor is it empirical. I don't have the space (or the energy) to explain why, but you can take it from me (a mathematician) that this is so.
Actually, much as I disapprove of libertarians (I think they're naive), I seem to recall that the late, great Frank Zappa was one. And while he certainly wasn't humble, he _was_ articulate, and seemed to care about other people.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't remember the last time I saw genuinely self-documenting code.
I _am_ a programmer, and what you suggest is also the way I prefer to write code, only it's perhaps slightly less experimental in my case and I don't have to reach for the language reference manual quite so often.
This is pretty much what my uncle (a retired civil engineer) did. He always says that a good engineer is a bloke who can design a building that almost falls over.
No - he means Will Rogers. Roy wasn't funny.
A bloke I used to work for (he wasn't exactly an IT person, but he was pretty cluey) used to get two or three of us to evaluate every proposal that came over his desk, then combine our impressions with his own. Unfortunately this often had to be done at extremely short notice ("Here, read these five 40 page documents and provide me with your assessment of them by close of business today. I've got a meeting at 8am tomorrow.") because he'd only just got the documents himself.
I wouldn't say this bloke was doing his job poorly, btw.
And why would you bother?
> Most mathematicians do their best work when they're young
Except, of course, for Erdos.
Think Turing Machine (notions of computability) - looked like pretty abstruse mathematical logic in 1930 (or whenever) but happens to be the basis of general-purpose computers. This one actually paid off pretty quickly.
I have to agree with you about Notes. I'm actually looking forward to the day we swing over to Exchange.
The binary incompatibilty problem indicates they were writing shitty code, so _of course_ they got bitten on the arse. Serves them right.
In Adelaide, where I live, houses built more than, say, 70 years ago have problems with salt-damp (well, the brick and stone ones do). However, if you fix that they're pretty solid. The houses built between 1920 and about 1940 are pretty good, generally (although they're often not aesthetically outstanding). The ones built immediately after WW2, up 'til the mid 1950's, are absolutely atrocious _and_ as ugly as a hat full of arseholes. The ones built up to about 1970 are equally ugly, but rather better constructed, because the building standards started being enforced. From then on, it's all downhill. Even though many of them are quite attractive and extremely comfortable, they are out-of-style in about 5 years, and they are not built to last.
I won't comment on commercial buildings, as I don't care for anything that's more than about 4 storeys high.
But ... Microsoft _are_ up to no good.
Actually ... you would have had to learn vi (the prince of text editors) even without Sun.
Otoh, there's still a lot of FORTRAN, COBOL and C about.
I doubt that you understand the concept of education in that case. It's not a product, it's a process. Vocational training, otoh ...
LOL. If you're using smack, the only thing you're likely to be supporting is your own habit. You'll certainly be incapable of too much abstract thought.
This isn't strictly true. The library at one of my previous employers acquired (I'm sure quite legally) a photocopy of a book that was out of print from another library.
The biggest delusion is that anyone'd bother to steal most of their content. I'd actually like to sue the buggers for stealing the odd 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back.
> The bottom line is the IT department will really never make a company any money.
This actually depends on your industry. I work for an oil and gas exploration and production company, and IT makes us shitloads (although this is not necessarily appreciated all the way up the food chain). The oil industry generally is able to economically exploit reserves that would not have even been found without software allowing geoscientists to interpret 3D seismic surveys and the high-end graphics workstations it runs on (we're a Sun shop).
> It is demeaning for a highly skilled programmer to be stuck writing glue code to glue two poorly written, heterogenous open source apps together.
It's even worse writing glue code to make poorly-written, heterogenous proprietry apps work together. Particularly when you are also working with a heterogenous hardware/os environment.
No, mathematics isn't a science, nor is it empirical. I don't have the space (or the energy) to explain why, but you can take it from me (a mathematician) that this is so.
Actually, much as I disapprove of libertarians (I think they're naive), I seem to recall that the late, great Frank Zappa was one. And while he certainly wasn't humble, he _was_ articulate, and seemed to care about other people.
Fucking what ??? Are you insane, or is this just a joke? If so, I don't get it, so could you explain it to me?
I think you missed my point. Unless, like me, you think Ayn Rand's ideas are economically silly.