maybe. the guy who played everquest until he collapsed may have fit that mold. but I don't see that here yet. people kill others over the dumbest little things.. a lot. and who knows what their relationship was or who else was involved, or what actually transpired at the scene of the crime.
Yes. I live not far away. it's basically a megamall, about 3.5 million square feet of leaseable space. There is an Apple store. The famous Xanadu project spent some time in a nearby apartment. The story goes that the area was named King of Prussia after a well known tavern, which was named to honor frederick the great, the king of prussia, having some relationship to the american war for independence.
I support usability. and I, too, experienced the "joy" of mp3 player skins. However, I also support an experimental approach to UI design. I like to see all kinds of things tried even if they seem stupid on the face of it. Why not? We need people trying stuff that doesn't make sense (yet). For instance, I would love it, and I mean I would rotfl if I could connect a window flutter value to a wind, um, whatever the thing is called that measures wind speed. Usability? whocares? what a cool demo. not that that specific thing would be something I'd want to actually use, but, like art, it makes you think about things differently. you think, how can I connect my UI experience more directly to the real world? The experiments going on with the motion sensor in the new apple powerbooks are another example of that: nobody really (do they?) wants to use the powerbook itself as a game controller, tilting it this way and that. But it's cool, and people are thinkin' diff'rently now about those sorts of things. I say: awesome. but again, stress it's not about that implementation specifically as it is about a way of thinking, and finding new directions for research.
In the late 80s I used an experimental Pascal system called Genie Pascal (from CMU). it had a structured editor that eliminated syntax errors because you could only input syntactically correct programs. woo hoo. of course, syntax is one of the least of our worries in software development. Similarly, trying to represent program structure as pictures at the level of syntax is a mistake - it's optimizing the wrong problem. We need to think bigger than syntax if we're going to find a useful visual programming metaphor.
If my steering wheel company is being put of business because car companys are bundling 'good enough' steering wheels with their cars, do I have a right to complain? Some people would argue that an a browser is an integral part of an OS
You can't drive a car without a steering wheel. This is not an example of bundling.
truly, i agree. one should never discount the survivability of paper. print out those old proprietary format documents before the app/media is inaccessible.
wow, a treadmill at the desk. never thought of that.
When I was in college and living in a dorm my desk was under my lofted bed. When programming I used to do pullups on it while thinking or waiting. It was great. Maybe I should rig something like that again.
Oh, and you can also do dips on the arms of the chair, with the right chair.
wow, agreement on slashdot! I should start reading the parents of comments to which I reply, I guess!
Re:If it works it still may not
on
QA != Testing
·
· Score: 1
The problem comes when that great code still doesn't fit the need that it was supposed to fill in the first place.
I agree absolutely
This issue has two hurdles if it is to be overcome. First, are coders that have no business knowledge. Second, business pros that have no software development experience. The coders complain that they weren't given the proper details of the project, and the business guys complain that the coders know nothing about business.
I think the problem is due to a lack of a true team environment, compounded by a lack of leadership. I wouldn't lay the need to understand business on the coders as much as I'd need the leader to understand the coders themselves. A good leader would know where they really need to go, and make sure the team knows why and how, what the problems will be, what the unknowns are, and how to order the tasks so requirements can be understood at the proper time to minimize course correction.
It comes down to hiring the right people, I think. No QA process can fix bad hires.
The author answers you directly. You are confusing the design process with the design product. The author says:
I am not arguing that we should not "do design." However you want to approach the process, I simply insist that you have not completed the process until you have written and tested the code.
Furthermore:
Some of my colleagues have interpreted my harangues on this subject as "Jack says forget design and just start coding". Nothing could be further from the truth (though I see how they get that impression). I am not against traditional software design. We desperately need good design at all levels. It doesn't matter whether we call the early process top level design, structural design, module design, or whatever. What I have been arguing for are two changes in perception. First, that we recognize that the results of the early design steps are not a complete software design any more than the first rough sketches are a complete bridge design. Second, that we capture our design thinking using a notation that is a true skeleton software design. That means using a programming language.
The idea that a design isn't finished until the system (as implemented) has been tested and shown to work is helpful, in my opinion. After all, fundamental design problems can show up at any point.
Join a startup company. Of course, you have to find one, or start one, but they love people like you. Being a low-budget environment, you get to do everything, with real responsibility, from sysadmin to programming and answering the phones (or whatever. Startup companies can't afford to hire sysadmins. They can usually only afford generalists. You can then emphasize whatever it is you want on your resume.
As for finding one, well... luck probably. you have to know people in that world. Or know those who know people doing it.
The other thing you could do is volunteer (ie for free) for a non-profit org to get experience while you do whatever other job you have. Like startups, they have little (or no) budget for people like you, but they probably desperately need technical help.
Additionally newer things tend to have more funcitonality than previous items, and therefore are more useful in an absolute sense (I can only do math with my abacus, but with my PowerBook 100, I can play solitaire).
However, there is no doubt that an expert abacus user can out-calculate an expert powerbook 100 (or g4) user. It's a perfect special-purpose device, which is why it is still in use today (in Asia anyway). In addition, a powerbook with a dead battery, or one that accidentally got wet or one which costs more than the income of a small village, is not very useful in an absolute sense.
I have to admit surprise that modern corporations can muscle the media better than the federal government, particularly the Nixon administration.
That Deep Throat wasn't caught (or revealed) is a testament to a) the critical importance of the situation and b) the skill with which it was accomplished.
The geology, etc., majors I knew were awesome programmers. The morons I knew were computer science majors who were just in it for the money. I remember them in class. Most of my CS classes seemed to be full of them (1990-1994 - before the boom). I was shocked by this since I became a CS major out of a pure love of programming. the liberal arts and science people that I knew who were programmers had the true hacker ethic.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe. the guy who played everquest until he collapsed may have fit that mold. but I don't see that here yet. people kill others over the dumbest little things.. a lot. and who knows what their relationship was or who else was involved, or what actually transpired at the scene of the crime.
I never won a car or PDA, but I haven't bought a pen in 6 years.
Heh. I once won a Palm III when it was the latest and greatest. That would be.. hmm.. '98?
Yes. I live not far away. it's basically a megamall, about 3.5 million square feet of leaseable space. There is an Apple store. The famous Xanadu project spent some time in a nearby apartment. The story goes that the area was named King of Prussia after a well known tavern, which was named to honor frederick the great, the king of prussia, having some relationship to the american war for independence.
I support usability. and I, too, experienced the "joy" of mp3 player skins. However, I also support an experimental approach to UI design. I like to see all kinds of things tried even if they seem stupid on the face of it. Why not? We need people trying stuff that doesn't make sense (yet). For instance, I would love it, and I mean I would rotfl if I could connect a window flutter value to a wind, um, whatever the thing is called that measures wind speed. Usability? whocares? what a cool demo. not that that specific thing would be something I'd want to actually use, but, like art, it makes you think about things differently. you think, how can I connect my UI experience more directly to the real world? The experiments going on with the motion sensor in the new apple powerbooks are another example of that: nobody really (do they?) wants to use the powerbook itself as a game controller, tilting it this way and that. But it's cool, and people are thinkin' diff'rently now about those sorts of things. I say: awesome. but again, stress it's not about that implementation specifically as it is about a way of thinking, and finding new directions for research.
I pronounce it an artistic interpretation and therefore kewl unto itself. it needs no additional justification.
As a mac user, the last time I had a virus was in 1993. I was using a color classic, as a point of reference. System 7.1
In the late 80s I used an experimental Pascal system called Genie Pascal (from CMU). it had a structured editor that eliminated syntax errors because you could only input syntactically correct programs. woo hoo. of course, syntax is one of the least of our worries in software development. Similarly, trying to represent program structure as pictures at the level of syntax is a mistake - it's optimizing the wrong problem. We need to think bigger than syntax if we're going to find a useful visual programming metaphor.
My Primary Care Physician has offered many tests to me "under the table" for that very reason.
Isn't it great when you have to sneak around the healthcare system to feel safe.
If my steering wheel company is being put of business because car companys are bundling 'good enough' steering wheels with their cars, do I have a right to complain? Some people would argue that an a browser is an integral part of an OS
You can't drive a car without a steering wheel. This is not an example of bundling.
truly, i agree. one should never discount the survivability of paper. print out those old proprietary format documents before the app/media is inaccessible.
wow, a treadmill at the desk. never thought of that.
When I was in college and living in a dorm my desk was under my lofted bed. When programming I used to do pullups on it while thinking or waiting. It was great. Maybe I should rig something like that again.
Oh, and you can also do dips on the arms of the chair, with the right chair.
some people find standing at their desks to be preferable to sitting.
I can't honestly remember the last time I actually installed Flash. Hasn't it been bundled with most browsers since... oh.. 1999?
wow, agreement on slashdot! I should start reading the parents of comments to which I reply, I guess!
The problem comes when that great code still doesn't fit the need that it was supposed to fill in the first place.
I agree absolutely
This issue has two hurdles if it is to be overcome. First, are coders that have no business knowledge. Second, business pros that have no software development experience. The coders complain that they weren't given the proper details of the project, and the business guys complain that the coders know nothing about business.
I think the problem is due to a lack of a true team environment, compounded by a lack of leadership. I wouldn't lay the need to understand business on the coders as much as I'd need the leader to understand the coders themselves. A good leader would know where they really need to go, and make sure the team knows why and how, what the problems will be, what the unknowns are, and how to order the tasks so requirements can be understood at the proper time to minimize course correction.
It comes down to hiring the right people, I think. No QA process can fix bad hires.
Furthermore:
The idea that a design isn't finished until the system (as implemented) has been tested and shown to work is helpful, in my opinion. After all, fundamental design problems can show up at any point.
Join a startup company. Of course, you have to find one, or start one, but they love people like you. Being a low-budget environment, you get to do everything, with real responsibility, from sysadmin to programming and answering the phones (or whatever. Startup companies can't afford to hire sysadmins. They can usually only afford generalists. You can then emphasize whatever it is you want on your resume.
As for finding one, well... luck probably. you have to know people in that world. Or know those who know people doing it.
The other thing you could do is volunteer (ie for free) for a non-profit org to get experience while you do whatever other job you have. Like startups, they have little (or no) budget for people like you, but they probably desperately need technical help.
recompressed do to the gif patent issue, perhaps?
However, there is no doubt that an expert abacus user can out-calculate an expert powerbook 100 (or g4) user. It's a perfect special-purpose device, which is why it is still in use today (in Asia anyway). In addition, a powerbook with a dead battery, or one that accidentally got wet or one which costs more than the income of a small village, is not very useful in an absolute sense.
i like my broken code jsut fine
but seriously, TBL said the philosophy that allowed the web to grow was: be tolerant of input, strict on output. FYI.
That Deep Throat wasn't caught (or revealed) is a testament to a) the critical importance of the situation and b) the skill with which it was accomplished.
by the way, it's been said that his/her identity will become public soon
And crop+rotate.
On the login screen you enter >console for the username and press return to get to a text-only environment. this helps too.
...except we don't know how much has been lost!
The geology, etc., majors I knew were awesome programmers. The morons I knew were computer science majors who were just in it for the money. I remember them in class. Most of my CS classes seemed to be full of them (1990-1994 - before the boom). I was shocked by this since I became a CS major out of a pure love of programming. the liberal arts and science people that I knew who were programmers had the true hacker ethic.