Slashdot Mirror


User: nonlucent

nonlucent's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
4
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 4

  1. What? on The State of Remote Desktops? · · Score: 0

    I believe the poster desires something more ambituous than vnc access... what he wants is a gui environment which resides ENTIRELY on a 3rd party server. This would be offered as an asp kind of thing, much like what desktop.com attempted- encrypted file storage, web and productivity apps all available from a java client. this would be 'really cool', especially if it could use some distributed computing concepts in order to actually use the client machine's disk and cpu for redundant storage and what not. woot.

  2. Redundant on Dot-Commers vs. Government Contractors · · Score: 0

    You idiot! Somebody already mentioned Snow crash way up there!

  3. Snow Crash on Dot-Commers vs. Government Contractors · · Score: 0

    Could anyone who's read snow crash code for the government? Not me... this has got to be the best portrayal of what happens when you combine software development with bureaucracy. Nobody sane ends up working for the government, or should it be nobody working for the government ends up sane?

    This post should have taken you 6.5 Seconds to read, not including this notice. This notice should have taken you 1.8 Seconds to read.

  4. First Modularize, Then rewrite? on When Making a Comprehensive Retrofit of your Code... · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This is just an idea, I have no actual education on this subject. I do have a good amout of experience working with old, uncommented code- some of which didn't even have an initial design ( verbally gave some contractors 'a good idea' of 'what it should do') ! Anyway- here it is; first break up your EXISTING ugly code into a proper grouping of modules and functions ( your new design, maybe with some extra small functions for easy debugging ), keeping all the nasty little tricks added to fix the nasty little(big) bugs. Then, rewrite each little function one by one; after each fix, checking the output of a good automated tester is handy! Otherwise a whole QA cycle is required, but this IMHO is a _safe_ , if somewhat painful method, that gives you better options in terms of bugfixing/adding features at the same time( bullshit? maybe! ) since the 'in-between' code will (often/sometimes/probablynot) still work.