I don't think that six sigma and agile software development are derivatives of each other. Agile Software Development is actually meant to attack a different kind of problem than Six Sigma, even Lean Six Sigma, is meant to attack. The idea behind Six Sigma is that you can get more efficiency out of a process by always doing things exactly the same way. Try to cut down on the variance as much as possible. This is why it does well with production line/engineering type activities.
The idea behind agile software development is that you can not apply production line type ideas to software development because two software development projects are never the same. This is why estimating and planning for them is so difficult. Agile software development says that you should just admit that developing a software product is more like research and less like running a production line and plan it accordingly. This means doing short explorative iterations that slowly build up to a larger deliverable and constantly inspecting the process and the schedule and making course corrections on the schedule.
You can see that the map is build from more than two data sets taken at different points in time. The only reason that I can come up with as to why they might do this is to to try to eliminate all cloud cover from every sub section.
A singleton is really just a way to get around the way that constructors work in OO - namely that they always generate an object before any of the user code is even invoked. This does not allow for intelligent instantiation of objects and object reuse. The way that you are talking about using it is as a way to simulate global state - which is really no better than just using a global variable in the first place.
Ideally you would solve this problem using an aspect. This is exactly what aspects and AOP were designed for, a way to abstract functionality that does not make sense any where in traditional OO and that cross cuts a large part of the system. Data loggers are also an example of something that should be solved with an aspect.
In general when I give written tests to try to judge a software engineers skill it is not language specific. I am not interested in seeing if people have memorized all of the constructors that are associated with a HashTable. Rather I am trying to find out where they are as a programmer and as a software engineer. To this end I ask for them to answer all question is pseudo code or their favorite language. I generally arrange the test to get sequentially harder - so it will be arranged something like: 1. Implement a fuction that takes in a string and returns that string with the characters in the opposite order. 2. Implement a function with the same functionality as question 1 but implement it with recursion. 3. Write me two functions, that are meant to run in a thread safe manner, where one function pushes strings on to a stack and the other retrieves data from the stack and prints out the string. 4. Please develop a high level UML-like design for a simple thread pool. Please be sure to include ways to retrive threads out of the pool, exprire threads out of the pool when they have been inactive for a certain period of time, grow as usage increases etc.
Those are the types of questions that I ask. Once they have answered all of the questions I generally sit down with them and grill them on their answers - to me this is the most important part as you get to see how they react to their answers being questioned, see how fast they can think on their feet and see how they pick up new ideas that are given to them and how they can apply that to the problems that are given.
Apparently the background dates on the screen were changed as well to 01.24.04 rather than their original dates. I thought that these guys were just nuts until it all turned out to be true.
This article is complete FUD from the linux side of the fence. Having mono widly available is good for everyone, it is good for developers as now they will have a common platform to develop on, it is good for linux because now people who were traditionally only microsoft platform programmers will now produce software for linux as well and it is good for microsoft because it opens up a whole new operating system for them. Anything that helps.net grow helps microsoft, cowering in the corner spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about what microsoft might be able to do is very hypocritical in my mind as it is what slashdot readers always claim microsoft only does.
Gates is right about one thing, microsoft certainly adds more innovation to the OS and OS/server market than any other software company out there. Yes you can make the argument that a lot of it is stolen ideas or bought technology, but microsoft is the only one that really has the guts to try to make it main stream. Look at the next version of the windows file system, microsoft is going to try to integrate it directly with a relational database. Now say what you will about ReiserFS also doing this and various other nitch technologies taking this same approach this is still major innovation and an attempt to advance the market.
Linux on the other hand is basically a reimplementation of known technologies in order to make them open source. I'm sure there are Linux zealots who can point out extremly technical areas where Linux makes some small innovation but on the whole it is just a reimplementation of the same ideas that *nix has used for thirty years.
Basically I am saying that I agree with Bill, microsoft does bring a lot of innovation to the market and linux brings very little innovation.
Why do we need an open source version of java? What does it gain us besides a lot of wasted effort once again reinventing the wheel? Java is already managed by the JCP which is suns stab at allowing other companies to have a say in java without actually releasing control of it. An open source version of java will not gain control over the java apis, which sun still rigidly controls. At best it will make a red hat vm that has red hat proprietary extensions in it, the same thing that microsoft was so roundly criticised for a few years back. There are all ready several high performane java vms out there that have friendly licenese, so what will an open source really accomplish?
Try Idea by intellij. I know it is more of a pure java development environment but it has all of the requriments that you are looking for. My company uses it for all of their development(java, jsp, html ) and thus far we have been very very happy with it.
I am actually using the initial implementation of this on our current project and it is very nice. Actually have fine grained synchronization control makes it much easier to deal with a lot of thread synchronization problems. It has also helped us greatly reduce deadlock and detect deadlock because locks and waits can time out and report to you that they have timed out rather than just happily returning like Object.wait() does today. All in all this, along with generics, is probably the best new feature that is being added in jdk 1.5
It seems a little bit evil that the compiler is creating object instances under the covers for you. One of the great things about c++ enums is that they are still primitives. By making them objects you have to worry about the compiler creating a lot of extra objects behind your back especially in tight highly used loops. Java is already a bit of "magic" language anyway but adding in "magical" object creation where you don't expect it doesn't seem like a good thing in all situations.
I am highly skeptical of things like this because it seems to just be microsoft attempting to control an xml based data language as a reaction to a similar open language, xquery, being developed by the w3c.
Don't you think that you are missing the whole point of the article. The point was that strategically embedded print statements are the lowest common denominator for debugging and have been used for thrity years while the rest of the computing industry has advanced. How come the debugging tools haven't advanced at the same pace? There must be a better way of doing debugging, just as programming methodologies have advance debugging methodologies must also advance(in parallel where possible). I personally believe that debugging methodlogies will not advance without language design at least taking into consideration that programs will be written in a language and that those programs will need to be debugged. Without this consideration all that developers will ever have is strategically placed print statements(which is all that breakpoints and watches are anyway though in a slightly different form). For debugging to easier debugging has to be more automated and less done by hand. The only way that I can see this being accomplished is if there is some more advanced way to call out what the intent of a section of code is and have a debugger available that can help debug intent. Otherwise debugging will just continue to be print statements.
The reason that professional programmers, people who program for a living, work on open source projects seems to at least partially come from the enviornment that they are. Most of us are in corporate enviornments, and the goals of corporations and the goals of developers are often diametrically opposed. Programmers want to program, they want to write a lot of code, and write code using a lot of different technologies. Corporations on the other hand want programmers to write one thing( or at best one thing every couple of years ) and then maintain that one thing for an extended period of time. They want programmers to always develop in the same language and on the same platform.
This is what has driven me to the open source world, just being able to write a lot of code using different technologies. Just because i'm not an expert in a something at this very instant doesn't mean that I'm not interested in working on and learning that thing. Plus there is always lots of code that needs to be written:-)
Slashdot Mirror
... You just paid to have your web site brought to it's knees.
http://www.meebo.com/
I don't think that six sigma and agile software development are derivatives of each other. Agile Software Development is actually meant to attack a different kind of problem than Six Sigma, even Lean Six Sigma, is meant to attack. The idea behind Six Sigma is that you can get more efficiency out of a process by always doing things exactly the same way. Try to cut down on the variance as much as possible. This is why it does well with production line/engineering type activities.
The idea behind agile software development is that you can not apply production line type ideas to software development because two software development projects are never the same. This is why estimating and planning for them is so difficult. Agile software development says that you should just admit that developing a software product is more like research and less like running a production line and plan it accordingly. This means doing short explorative iterations that slowly build up to a larger deliverable and constantly inspecting the process and the schedule and making course corrections on the schedule.
I see that the ads on slashdot have made their way out of the banners and now are being held up as actual stories!
Seriously, is this anything other than a glorified advertisement for this keyboard?
also fails
Looks like a duplicate story from a little while back:
1 0/1422230&tid=160&tid=126
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/
If you look at this link:
, -93.731489&sll=44.841170,-93.543284&spn=0.061626,0 .085316&sspn=0.015407,0.021329&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=google&ll=44.793835
You can see that the map is build from more than two data sets taken at different points in time. The only reason that I can come up with as to why they might do this is to to try to eliminate all cloud cover from every sub section.
A singleton is really just a way to get around the way that constructors work in OO - namely that they always generate an object before any of the user code is even invoked. This does not allow for intelligent instantiation of objects and object reuse. The way that you are talking about using it is as a way to simulate global state - which is really no better than just using a global variable in the first place.
Ideally you would solve this problem using an aspect. This is exactly what aspects and AOP were designed for, a way to abstract functionality that does not make sense any where in traditional OO and that cross cuts a large part of the system. Data loggers are also an example of something that should be solved with an aspect.
In general when I give written tests to try to judge a software engineers skill it is not language specific. I am not interested in seeing if people have memorized all of the constructors that are associated with a HashTable. Rather I am trying to find out where they are as a programmer and as a software engineer. To this end I ask for them to answer all question is pseudo code or their favorite language. I generally arrange the test to get sequentially harder - so it will be arranged something like:
1. Implement a fuction that takes in a string and returns that string with the characters in the opposite order.
2. Implement a function with the same functionality as question 1 but implement it with recursion.
3. Write me two functions, that are meant to run in a thread safe manner, where one function pushes strings on to a stack and the other retrieves data from the stack and prints out the string.
4. Please develop a high level UML-like design for a simple thread pool. Please be sure to include ways to retrive threads out of the pool, exprire threads out of the pool when they have been inactive for a certain period of time, grow as usage increases etc.
Those are the types of questions that I ask. Once they have answered all of the questions I generally sit down with them and grill them on their answers - to me this is the most important part as you get to see how they react to their answers being questioned, see how fast they can think on their feet and see how they pick up new ideas that are given to them and how they can apply that to the problems that are given.
Just my 2 cents.
Apparently the background dates on the screen were changed as well to 01.24.04 rather than their original dates. I thought that these guys were just nuts until it all turned out to be true.
You should try jpedal: http://sourceforge.net/projects/jpedal/
Basically this is a open source library for reading and writing pdfs.
because adults only like classic games because of the nostalgic factor?
This article is complete FUD from the linux side of the fence. Having mono widly available is good for everyone, it is good for developers as now they will have a common platform to develop on, it is good for linux because now people who were traditionally only microsoft platform programmers will now produce software for linux as well and it is good for microsoft because it opens up a whole new operating system for them. Anything that helps .net grow helps microsoft, cowering in the corner spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about what microsoft might be able to do is very hypocritical in my mind as it is what slashdot readers always claim microsoft only does.
Gates is right about one thing, microsoft certainly adds more innovation to the OS and OS/server market than any other software company out there. Yes you can make the argument that a lot of it is stolen ideas or bought technology, but microsoft is the only one that really has the guts to try to make it main stream. Look at the next version of the windows file system, microsoft is going to try to integrate it directly with a relational database. Now say what you will about ReiserFS also doing this and various other nitch technologies taking this same approach this is still major innovation and an attempt to advance the market.
Linux on the other hand is basically a reimplementation of known technologies in order to make them open source. I'm sure there are Linux zealots who can point out extremly technical areas where Linux makes some small innovation but on the whole it is just a reimplementation of the same ideas that *nix has used for thirty years.
Basically I am saying that I agree with Bill, microsoft does bring a lot of innovation to the market and linux brings very little innovation.
Why do we need an open source version of java? What does it gain us besides a lot of wasted effort once again reinventing the wheel? Java is already managed by the JCP which is suns stab at allowing other companies to have a say in java without actually releasing control of it. An open source version of java will not gain control over the java apis, which sun still rigidly controls. At best it will make a red hat vm that has red hat proprietary extensions in it, the same thing that microsoft was so roundly criticised for a few years back. There are all ready several high performane java vms out there that have friendly licenese, so what will an open source really accomplish?
Try Idea by intellij. I know it is more of a pure java development environment but it has all of the requriments that you are looking for. My company uses it for all of their development(java, jsp, html ) and thus far we have been very very happy with it.
I am actually using the initial implementation of this on our current project and it is very nice. Actually have fine grained synchronization control makes it much easier to deal with a lot of thread synchronization problems. It has also helped us greatly reduce deadlock and detect deadlock because locks and waits can time out and report to you that they have timed out rather than just happily returning like Object.wait() does today. All in all this, along with generics, is probably the best new feature that is being added in jdk 1.5
It seems a little bit evil that the compiler is creating object instances under the covers for you. One of the great things about c++ enums is that they are still primitives. By making them objects you have to worry about the compiler creating a lot of extra objects behind your back especially in tight highly used loops. Java is already a bit of "magic" language anyway but adding in "magical" object creation where you don't expect it doesn't seem like a good thing in all situations.
I am highly skeptical of things like this because it seems to just be microsoft attempting to control an xml based data language as a reaction to a similar open language, xquery, being developed by the w3c.
Don't you think that you are missing the whole point of the article. The point was that strategically embedded print statements are the lowest common denominator for debugging and have been used for thrity years while the rest of the computing industry has advanced. How come the debugging tools haven't advanced at the same pace? There must be a better way of doing debugging, just as programming methodologies have advance debugging methodologies must also advance(in parallel where possible). I personally believe that debugging methodlogies will not advance without language design at least taking into consideration that programs will be written in a language and that those programs will need to be debugged. Without this consideration all that developers will ever have is strategically placed print statements(which is all that breakpoints and watches are anyway though in a slightly different form). For debugging to easier debugging has to be more automated and less done by hand. The only way that I can see this being accomplished is if there is some more advanced way to call out what the intent of a section of code is and have a debugger available that can help debug intent. Otherwise debugging will just continue to be print statements.
I wonder if they will be keeping this disaster :-)
The reason that professional programmers, people who program for a living, work on open source projects seems to at least partially come from the enviornment that they are. Most of us are in corporate enviornments, and the goals of corporations and the goals of developers are often diametrically opposed. Programmers want to program, they want to write a lot of code, and write code using a lot of different technologies. Corporations on the other hand want programmers to write one thing( or at best one thing every couple of years ) and then maintain that one thing for an extended period of time. They want programmers to always develop in the same language and on the same platform.
:-)
This is what has driven me to the open source world, just being able to write a lot of code using different technologies. Just because i'm not an expert in a something at this very instant doesn't mean that I'm not interested in working on and learning that thing. Plus there is always lots of code that needs to be written