Or they will show you why code comments are a bad idea.
Code comments are usually unmaintainable artifacts; misleading at best.
The best kind of documentation is architectural description of the solution. Everything else is just rubbish. I want to see code comments WHEN they are needed - and the fewer the better. If you write your code in such a manner that it needs documentation, then you might have done a bad job ad writing code.
Example of moments when you NEED to document code: module boundaries, interfaces and implementation hints for when the code needs extension. But by no means should one document EVERY call; but the most important ones. Code samples would help.
The title looks like an excerpt from slashdot article, cca 2014
EMail has qualities that no other means will ever have: it can be archived, you can search for information in it, and the conversations are logically organized. Good luck to the manager, I think he will need it, soon
On the religious side, it's an "abomination" and "unnatural" (despite the above) because the bible says so.
You know that what you said has nothing in common with the idea of God and spirituality, and also nothing to do with the 'debate' that we're discussing? This is pretty much what the science dude said too, but that was not the subject matter of the discussion, and you're very, very, very offtopic.
When guys like this one talk for 'science', really makes me want to become ignorant and send science to hell. He might advocate a good idea, but he does that badly.
The religious guys are the ones that created science, for heavens' sake. Look at the history of science, and you'll see WHO actually contributed to science. There is no real contradiction between the faith/religion, as in the spiritual aspects of life (things like morality and purpose of life) and science, that works in the material aspects of life. Nobody cries that psychology has nothing scientific about it.
And also, please keep in mind what was the topic of the discussion. In this case, the 'religion' guy was saying that science and religion coexist quite well, thank you, the other one was simply an idiot claiming to 'protect' science. Yet the science guy ignored the different aims of science and religion, one is for the material plane of existence, the other is for the psyche. He acted like an ignorant inquisitor. Amazingly, the tables are turned, now, and idiots are in charge of science.
Does that justify the 'science defender' to go and run amok without proper arguments? What kind of discussion does he make? Look at how bad that and that went? How about the religion guy to go like: "Look at the nazis, what crimes they committed using science, and for the development of science! Look at the atomic bomb!" This is no debate, and even if the science guy 'wins' he does that by being lame and acting like a retard. That makes science retard, and all of the sudden, I am forced to listen more to the religious guy, because I think I was too critical from the start, and didn't really listen to what he said. And, come to think of it, what he says actually makes sense
Science is about reason. The guy presenting the 'religious' view was more reasonable and had more arguments than the 'scientific' dude. Just because you agree with his point of view, that doesn't make his presentation any better.
Which is all fine and good, but that doesn't give them the right to attempt to dictate what is science, should it offend them at some point. I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.
Well, in the same way there is the thing that 'the church of science' should not dictate what other churches believe. I am a strong believer in freedom of thought, and it seems that 'science' fans are not, since their church knows better. And I make a clear separation between science fans and scientists, because the latter actually do something useful to the society. As for science fans, I am coming from a purely atheistic society, that is the ex-communist space. I am really sick and tired of the lack of arguments and the lack of insight of people that judge belief and religion by selectively picking their own favorite view of the issue. It's like creationists idiots that think that science is about alchemy, and how idiotic that alchemy thing is.
This is, instead, a one-sided boxing match.
It's not fun to watch. There is no debate. There is a set of punches thrown by the atheist dude, and the rest of the discussion is not anywhere to be seen. Is there a second part?
I'm willing to have more bad slashdot karma for what I'm saying here: Coyne is unreasonable, erratic, and doesn't bring any sort of proof for his beliefs. It seems that since Al Gore, everyone is allowed to distort what 'scientific' is as long as it pleases the general population.
Half of the current Linux kernel is contributed by RedHat. About half of the base environment IS managed by people hired by RH to do the job. the #1 thing in your list: a huge part is contributed by people from RedHat. Who work more on this than your average joe contributing to a project.
So your list is like this:
1. Open source developers create great software. Some of them are supported by RedHat, from their money, to do FOSS
2. Redhat packages their work, add logos and tries to sell support to be able to support more FOSS development.
3. CentOS developers strip out the logos and give it away for free
Who is the leech now?
C for dummies was the book that my girlfriend taught C from and programming in general. With its friendly writing it helps alleviate the learning curve for a noob programmer. I think it's the book I'd recommend to anyone starting programming - and to me too. Unfortunately, I was born too early for this book, and started programming with ZX Spectrum Basic and assembly language. Which is cool too, but by far not as cool as C:)
I was amazed (and I still am) at how clumsy my girlfriend is when trying to write code. Not because she is a bad programmer, to the contrary. But she lacks basic skills like using the TAB key for indenting, for holding shift and moving the cursor to a certain direction. How moving from word to word can be done by holding CTRL pressed as well.
I guess this sort of amateurism in basic editing skills (and basic operating skills) is due to the fact that software is now friendlier. Maybe too friendly.
And I am pretty sure that distribution is really influential. I think Ballmer woke up horrified that the KFreeBSD-GNU will attack Microsoft's dominance on the desktop.
KDE and GNOME are two highly polarized projects. Each with its own visions, and the freedesktop specifications to make them work together. But it seems that that doesn't work. Why? It's simple: because each desktop environment decides it could reinvent the wheel and it does just that.
What KDE and GNOME don't really offer (and, in fact, none of the desktop environments) is CHOICE. How come? Well, it's not a real choice when it comes prepackaged. You want a better console application? Sure, you could use Konsole in GNOME, but on one hand you'll be lynched by the GNOME fans, and second of all you'd have to KNOW that you want Konsole. And you'd have to avoid a component that you can't uninstall (because it's core component in GNOME) in order to get your application. You'll have two. Aaaaand, talk about configurability. You'll see some fonts in GNOME, some in KDE. Thus: some for GNOME terminal, some for Konsole. Or have you ever changed the default browser in Kubuntu? Man, that's a disaster. Sure, it works better, but you'll still have to use their all shenanigans to make it work. And sometimes it will just pop up the konq just because (at least that was the case one year ago).
I might talk about old bugs, but these kind of things keep me away from the Linux desktop since a few years now. Sure, Linux on server? Swell! On my desktop? Never. How can I play my Steam games (wine doesn't work as great as it should)? I can't even look at HD youtube on my desktop, with either open driver or proprietary driver. That's why I think there's no real focus on the desktop, so it's dead to me.
You need to remember that most of the developers for non-profit open source projects are there by their own choice. Some will form teams if they think their shared vision is good enough for them to cast aside their differences in ideologies. But you can't force vision/ideologies on everyone, there is no obligation upon them.
I said all these just to prove a point: The fact that even if the open source projects are indeed done by their own choice, the core is not good enough. Why Windows is so great? Well, for what we're talking about, for one reason: you can use your Qt application, your Gtk+ application, your GDI application, your winforms application on a VERY stable core. GNOME and KDE remove my choices because they want to make too much. And instead of freeing choices and letting the initiative run free, it makes a choice for you. Windows is tabula rasa - I can write ANYTHING on it. Including new settings applications. On GNOME I can't install my favorite tweaking application, because that tweaking application is created for KDE, and it's not doing what it's supposed to.
The way I see it, for the desktop application developer, Windows is a much better platform. It's stable, and it gives you the freedom to use and implement whatever you want. It doesn't get in the way, like GNOME and KDE do. And all the other fights like Evolution and Thunderbird (if I want to use Evolution I have to install half or 3/4 of GNOME). The way the Linux desktop is built, it just doesn't work. Why does KDE have to be so huge? Why does GNOME have to have so many libraries? Why aren't the modules more independent? They could be, but they won't. And if you have two smaller giants, climbing on their shoulders will get you much lower than climbing on the shoulders of a single giant, two times taller.
It is pretty new, true. But it expresses the core of the argument. There are these internal fights that hurt the desktop environment on Linux immensely. It's vi vs. emacs all over again. Nothing new, you know?
Because of this fight there is no focus. The Linux kernel is a success story because it's a very well focused project. Because there's one project. If there were two, and people always would prefer Linuxx and not Linuxs because one is in C and the other in C++ and they would debate which one is better, the Linux kernel as we know it would be nowhere.
I agree with you in the fact that X is great technology. I even understand the love you have for it. But it's still an obsolete model, and Wayland is a step up; sure, it will take a while to mature; sure, it won't have what X has. But it has something that the 99% of the current Ubuntu users want. Some lean and mean redering machine.
I had the misfortune of working with X and XLib, and it was one of the main reasons of a failed project (a media center that had more features than most media center software have now). I personally hate and love X. I frankly am hoping for a better X and Wayland, somehow, feels like it's just that. For me.
Slashdot Mirror
Or they will show you why code comments are a bad idea.
Code comments are usually unmaintainable artifacts; misleading at best.
The best kind of documentation is architectural description of the solution. Everything else is just rubbish. I want to see code comments WHEN they are needed - and the fewer the better. If you write your code in such a manner that it needs documentation, then you might have done a bad job ad writing code.
Example of moments when you NEED to document code: module boundaries, interfaces and implementation hints for when the code needs extension. But by no means should one document EVERY call; but the most important ones. Code samples would help.
Just some programmer's opinion
The title looks like an excerpt from slashdot article, cca 2014
EMail has qualities that no other means will ever have: it can be archived, you can search for information in it, and the conversations are logically organized. Good luck to the manager, I think he will need it, soon
On the religious side, it's an "abomination" and "unnatural" (despite the above) because the bible says so.
You know that what you said has nothing in common with the idea of God and spirituality, and also nothing to do with the 'debate' that we're discussing? This is pretty much what the science dude said too, but that was not the subject matter of the discussion, and you're very, very, very offtopic.
When guys like this one talk for 'science', really makes me want to become ignorant and send science to hell. He might advocate a good idea, but he does that badly.
The religious guys are the ones that created science, for heavens' sake. Look at the history of science, and you'll see WHO actually contributed to science. There is no real contradiction between the faith/religion, as in the spiritual aspects of life (things like morality and purpose of life) and science, that works in the material aspects of life. Nobody cries that psychology has nothing scientific about it.
And also, please keep in mind what was the topic of the discussion. In this case, the 'religion' guy was saying that science and religion coexist quite well, thank you, the other one was simply an idiot claiming to 'protect' science. Yet the science guy ignored the different aims of science and religion, one is for the material plane of existence, the other is for the psyche. He acted like an ignorant inquisitor. Amazingly, the tables are turned, now, and idiots are in charge of science.
Does that justify the 'science defender' to go and run amok without proper arguments? What kind of discussion does he make? Look at how bad that and that went? How about the religion guy to go like: "Look at the nazis, what crimes they committed using science, and for the development of science! Look at the atomic bomb!" This is no debate, and even if the science guy 'wins' he does that by being lame and acting like a retard. That makes science retard, and all of the sudden, I am forced to listen more to the religious guy, because I think I was too critical from the start, and didn't really listen to what he said. And, come to think of it, what he says actually makes sense
I find your lack of faith disturbing...
Science is about reason. The guy presenting the 'religious' view was more reasonable and had more arguments than the 'scientific' dude. Just because you agree with his point of view, that doesn't make his presentation any better.
Which is all fine and good, but that doesn't give them the right to attempt to dictate what is science, should it offend them at some point. I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.
Well, in the same way there is the thing that 'the church of science' should not dictate what other churches believe. I am a strong believer in freedom of thought, and it seems that 'science' fans are not, since their church knows better. And I make a clear separation between science fans and scientists, because the latter actually do something useful to the society. As for science fans, I am coming from a purely atheistic society, that is the ex-communist space. I am really sick and tired of the lack of arguments and the lack of insight of people that judge belief and religion by selectively picking their own favorite view of the issue. It's like creationists idiots that think that science is about alchemy, and how idiotic that alchemy thing is.
For a devout Roman-Catholic, that's really impressive
If we were to debate a topic related to Leprechauns, I would listen.
This is, instead, a one-sided boxing match. It's not fun to watch. There is no debate. There is a set of punches thrown by the atheist dude, and the rest of the discussion is not anywhere to be seen. Is there a second part? I'm willing to have more bad slashdot karma for what I'm saying here: Coyne is unreasonable, erratic, and doesn't bring any sort of proof for his beliefs. It seems that since Al Gore, everyone is allowed to distort what 'scientific' is as long as it pleases the general population.
Because hearing only one side is really the scientific way of doing things.
Half of the current Linux kernel is contributed by RedHat. About half of the base environment IS managed by people hired by RH to do the job. the #1 thing in your list: a huge part is contributed by people from RedHat. Who work more on this than your average joe contributing to a project. So your list is like this: 1. Open source developers create great software. Some of them are supported by RedHat, from their money, to do FOSS 2. Redhat packages their work, add logos and tries to sell support to be able to support more FOSS development. 3. CentOS developers strip out the logos and give it away for free Who is the leech now?
Red Hat is probably the #1 contributor to the Linux kernel. Need I add more?
Now really. You guys that were complaining about Arizona laws being too harsh and unjust. Where are you?
C for dummies was the book that my girlfriend taught C from and programming in general. With its friendly writing it helps alleviate the learning curve for a noob programmer. I think it's the book I'd recommend to anyone starting programming - and to me too. Unfortunately, I was born too early for this book, and started programming with ZX Spectrum Basic and assembly language. Which is cool too, but by far not as cool as C :)
I was amazed (and I still am) at how clumsy my girlfriend is when trying to write code. Not because she is a bad programmer, to the contrary. But she lacks basic skills like using the TAB key for indenting, for holding shift and moving the cursor to a certain direction. How moving from word to word can be done by holding CTRL pressed as well. I guess this sort of amateurism in basic editing skills (and basic operating skills) is due to the fact that software is now friendlier. Maybe too friendly.
Me too. And I am equally surprised :)
And I am pretty sure that distribution is really influential. I think Ballmer woke up horrified that the KFreeBSD-GNU will attack Microsoft's dominance on the desktop.
KDE and GNOME are two highly polarized projects. Each with its own visions, and the freedesktop specifications to make them work together. But it seems that that doesn't work. Why? It's simple: because each desktop environment decides it could reinvent the wheel and it does just that.
What KDE and GNOME don't really offer (and, in fact, none of the desktop environments) is CHOICE. How come? Well, it's not a real choice when it comes prepackaged. You want a better console application? Sure, you could use Konsole in GNOME, but on one hand you'll be lynched by the GNOME fans, and second of all you'd have to KNOW that you want Konsole. And you'd have to avoid a component that you can't uninstall (because it's core component in GNOME) in order to get your application. You'll have two. Aaaaand, talk about configurability. You'll see some fonts in GNOME, some in KDE. Thus: some for GNOME terminal, some for Konsole. Or have you ever changed the default browser in Kubuntu? Man, that's a disaster. Sure, it works better, but you'll still have to use their all shenanigans to make it work. And sometimes it will just pop up the konq just because (at least that was the case one year ago).
I might talk about old bugs, but these kind of things keep me away from the Linux desktop since a few years now. Sure, Linux on server? Swell! On my desktop? Never. How can I play my Steam games (wine doesn't work as great as it should)? I can't even look at HD youtube on my desktop, with either open driver or proprietary driver. That's why I think there's no real focus on the desktop, so it's dead to me.
You need to remember that most of the developers for non-profit open source projects are there by their own choice. Some will form teams if they think their shared vision is good enough for them to cast aside their differences in ideologies. But you can't force vision/ideologies on everyone, there is no obligation upon them.
I said all these just to prove a point: The fact that even if the open source projects are indeed done by their own choice, the core is not good enough. Why Windows is so great? Well, for what we're talking about, for one reason: you can use your Qt application, your Gtk+ application, your GDI application, your winforms application on a VERY stable core. GNOME and KDE remove my choices because they want to make too much. And instead of freeing choices and letting the initiative run free, it makes a choice for you. Windows is tabula rasa - I can write ANYTHING on it. Including new settings applications. On GNOME I can't install my favorite tweaking application, because that tweaking application is created for KDE, and it's not doing what it's supposed to.
The way I see it, for the desktop application developer, Windows is a much better platform. It's stable, and it gives you the freedom to use and implement whatever you want. It doesn't get in the way, like GNOME and KDE do. And all the other fights like Evolution and Thunderbird (if I want to use Evolution I have to install half or 3/4 of GNOME). The way the Linux desktop is built, it just doesn't work. Why does KDE have to be so huge? Why does GNOME have to have so many libraries? Why aren't the modules more independent? They could be, but they won't. And if you have two smaller giants, climbing on their shoulders will get you much lower than climbing on the shoulders of a single giant, two times taller.
I was just noting that the guy in the article talked about Linux distributions.
There are not many Linux distributions that would use BSD kernels. I don't really know why :D
And I'm sure GNU Hurd will be a rave.
It is pretty new, true. But it expresses the core of the argument. There are these internal fights that hurt the desktop environment on Linux immensely. It's vi vs. emacs all over again. Nothing new, you know?
Because of this fight there is no focus. The Linux kernel is a success story because it's a very well focused project. Because there's one project. If there were two, and people always would prefer Linuxx and not Linuxs because one is in C and the other in C++ and they would debate which one is better, the Linux kernel as we know it would be nowhere.
I agree with you in the fact that X is great technology. I even understand the love you have for it. But it's still an obsolete model, and Wayland is a step up; sure, it will take a while to mature; sure, it won't have what X has. But it has something that the 99% of the current Ubuntu users want. Some lean and mean redering machine.
I had the misfortune of working with X and XLib, and it was one of the main reasons of a failed project (a media center that had more features than most media center software have now). I personally hate and love X. I frankly am hoping for a better X and Wayland, somehow, feels like it's just that. For me.
That doesn't mean that Wayland CANNOT do it better :) And it's not the OS that is doing that, it's just the display drivers/servers.