As I was typing the post my first thought was of this particular convention in the Linux kernel code. The rule to follow there is to stay consistent with the existing body of code. But FYI, here's the relevant bit from the first edition of Code Complete:
Indentation has been shown to be correlated with increased programmer comprehension. The article "Program Indentation and Comprehensibility" reported that several studies found correlations between indentation and improved comprehension (Miara et al. 1983). Subjects scored 20 to 30 percent higher on a test of comprehension when programs had two-to-four-spaces indentation scheme than they did when programs had no indentation at all.
The same study found that it was important to neither under-emphasize nor over-emphasize a program's logical structure. The lowest comprehension scores were achieved on programs that were not indented at all. The second lowest scores were achieved on programs that used six-space indentation. The study concluded that two-to-four-space indentation was optimal. Interestingly, many subjects in the experiment felt that the six-space indentation was easier to use than the smaller indentations, even though their scores were lower. That's probably because six-space indentation looks pleasing. But regardless of how pretty it looks, six-space indentation turns out to be less readable. This is an example of a collision between aesthetic appeal and readability.
Code Complete, pp. 409, 410
So while the Linux kernel code may indeed aesthetically prevent the bad coding practice of deeply nested C code, it likely runs the risk of being harder to understand. Once again, this is the sort of thing I always thought was cool about the original book. It ascends above religious wars with hard data, while clearly identifying the whole subject as a religious issue... there's a little cartoon sign in the book at the beginning of that chapter.
If you read the first edition, one the things it did was give weight to things that are "obvious."
It's obvious that indents should be no more than 4 spaces and no less than 2 spaces, and that only one option should be used consistently throughout a given body of code. The cool thing was that the book gave you the results of studies that backed up this "obvious" statement. It put programming lore on a factual basis.
I came to the first edition of Code Complete with several years of programming experience under my belt. I had much the same response to it as I did to Pragmatic Programmer, namely that it helped me understand why I had developed some of the habits I had. It also helped me find those areas where I still needed polish.
Both of these books aimed at teaching how to program well, not how to program. I hope this second edition is up to the standard of the first.
The book is aimed at developers who may have graduated from some college class that taught them the Java language (for example), but did not teach them how to use it properly. Browsing through the sample chapter you mention, it seems to stay true to the character of the original. I notice on page 21 of the PDF that he discusses studies on information hiding. You and I may know the value of encapsulation, but the book points to facts that back up our lore on the subject.
The upshot of this fact is that Code Complete looks great in a references section of document that makes a technical argument, in much the same way The Mythical Man Month does (a stunning achievement in IT literature... it's ~ 30 years old and still right for the most part). All three of the books I mention here are worth reading simply because they capture good programming practice in a way no other piece of writing has.
And there is the interesting part. Generics in Java are not generics at all (have a look at Object-Oriented Software Construction, 2nd Edition for a good understanding of generics in O-O languages). Java's "autocasting" feature, as Bruce calls it, simply adds syntax that creates interface implementations. It saves a bit of typing, but it's only really useful for creating typesafe collections.
As mentioned elsewhere, autoboxing is a different matter entirely, but again, this is just a fudge to make the syntax more palatable. Hmmm... Syntactical fudge. There's something inherently wrong with that.
I'm not so sure they'll just turn off security features. I'd speculate that users would stop going to the website, thinking it's "screwed up" before they would think to turn security features off. Should some of those users start digging through support links at those broken websites (they are broken now, due to laziness or maliciousness), I'll bet that they'd uncover helpful instructions that lay them wide open to attack again. But I suspect most casual computer users will simply avoid "that terrible web site that doesn't work any more."
If they're like my parents, they're scarred from having to take their machine in for servicing after it got loaded up with spyware and viruses, and was ultimately compromised into a spam relay.
The net effect of increased support inqueries to broken web sites might actually be that some webmasters fix their site. Those that still require unsigned scripts and controls deserve to lose business, and/or pay a higher cost in support calls.
Both of my parents are now trained to use/run antivirus and antispyware software. My mother now knows to run a firewall, (still working on my Dad) and I've set them both up with Mozilla.
Getting them on to Linux will take a bit longer. Linux isn't quite there yet (show me a distro where they'll never have to touch a command line, and things are simple and consistent, and I'll considering flying out and installing it for them).
Adams really was a brilliant writer. The "Rob was a rain god" line in So Long and Thanks For All the Fish made me actually fall out of my chair laughing (it was a truly spectacular punchline).
I still use "we demand rigidly defined areas of uncertainty" in software requirements meetings.
B5 may not have made it to your TV screen if you didn't have cable, but it did run for all 5 seasons. In fact, it was the sole reason that triggered my decision to subscribe to cable.
Having just finished watching the series again on DVD, I have to say it's still good, even if the FX are starting to look a bit cheap (most of them still stand up very well). What made Babylon 5 so good was the story of the characters, and how they lived through or drove amazing events. As in real life, these events affected them and changed them.
G'kar going from annoying thug to an enlightened religious icon for his people. Londo, going from clown to the tragic figure of puppet emperor. Even Sinclair, who we only saw a little of, going from fighter pilot to the greatest figure in Minbari history.
Babylon 5 was television's Lord of the Rings. Great events seen through the eyes of sometimes humble characters, who grow as they affect the world around them.
I'd love to see that sort of writing applied to Star Trek. In fact, we started to see that toward the end of ST:TNG with Picard's character. Imagine a series full of that. Even one or two years of the show would be worthwhile for the experience. For further evidence, I'd site Firefly, half a season was better than none at all.
So it actually makes sense for Microsoft to aim to at least be able to run in this kind of environment. HPC is kind of the comupting industry's version of racing a Formula 1 car. The lessons you learn can actually be put back into the consumer product over the long run.
Just imagine if they'd done it earlier. We might still have the Windows shell and DOS, rather than Windows (as most of us experience it) and the Command Prompt.
Operator: How may I assist you today? Grandma: I think my robot went insane. Operator: What do you mean? Pearl: @!#$ *&!@% ^#@% generic v,iagr4! Operator: Was that Pearl?! Grandma: Yes, and she's been doing this for a week. At first, it wasn't so bad, but it's been happening more and more often. And some of the things she says... well... they're horrible! Pearl: More @#!$ pr0n for you!! Operator: My goodness! OK, let's see, have you made any changes to her settings lately? Grandma: Well... I did turn the reading thing on. Operator: Reading thing? Grandma: Yes, you know, it reads my e-mail to me... It was so nice, it told me all about this sweepstakes thingy... Pearl: Refinance your @&*$ now!!! Low rates 4 U...
...Microsoft's Paul Allen recently invested heavily in umbrella manufacturing companies.
When asked for comment he mentioned the financial opportunities involved. "I'm also investing in Coca-Cola, because we'll need the appropriate solvent to clean up this problem looming on the horizon."
Additionally, Darl McBride was heard to blame the proliferation of open source software as the probable cause for said explosion. He recommended senior citizens purchase licenses from SCO before the impending threat affects them.
Slashdot Mirror
But of course the evil marketing geniuses that gave us WinCE now proudly present us with WinSUX!
I like it.
ST:Insurrection was eminently forgettable. You're entirely forgiven.
As I was typing the post my first thought was of this particular convention in the Linux kernel code. The rule to follow there is to stay consistent with the existing body of code. But FYI, here's the relevant bit from the first edition of Code Complete:
So while the Linux kernel code may indeed aesthetically prevent the bad coding practice of deeply nested C code, it likely runs the risk of being harder to understand. Once again, this is the sort of thing I always thought was cool about the original book. It ascends above religious wars with hard data, while clearly identifying the whole subject as a religious issue... there's a little cartoon sign in the book at the beginning of that chapter.
If you read the first edition, one the things it did was give weight to things that are "obvious."
It's obvious that indents should be no more than 4 spaces and no less than 2 spaces, and that only one option should be used consistently throughout a given body of code. The cool thing was that the book gave you the results of studies that backed up this "obvious" statement. It put programming lore on a factual basis.
I came to the first edition of Code Complete with several years of programming experience under my belt. I had much the same response to it as I did to Pragmatic Programmer, namely that it helped me understand why I had developed some of the habits I had. It also helped me find those areas where I still needed polish.
Both of these books aimed at teaching how to program well, not how to program. I hope this second edition is up to the standard of the first.
The book is aimed at developers who may have graduated from some college class that taught them the Java language (for example), but did not teach them how to use it properly. Browsing through the sample chapter you mention, it seems to stay true to the character of the original. I notice on page 21 of the PDF that he discusses studies on information hiding. You and I may know the value of encapsulation, but the book points to facts that back up our lore on the subject.
The upshot of this fact is that Code Complete looks great in a references section of document that makes a technical argument, in much the same way The Mythical Man Month does (a stunning achievement in IT literature... it's ~ 30 years old and still right for the most part). All three of the books I mention here are worth reading simply because they capture good programming practice in a way no other piece of writing has.
And there is the interesting part. Generics in Java are not generics at all (have a look at Object-Oriented Software Construction, 2nd Edition for a good understanding of generics in O-O languages). Java's "autocasting" feature, as Bruce calls it, simply adds syntax that creates interface implementations. It saves a bit of typing, but it's only really useful for creating typesafe collections.
As mentioned elsewhere, autoboxing is a different matter entirely, but again, this is just a fudge to make the syntax more palatable. Hmmm... Syntactical fudge. There's something inherently wrong with that.
I'm not so sure they'll just turn off security features. I'd speculate that users would stop going to the website, thinking it's "screwed up" before they would think to turn security features off. Should some of those users start digging through support links at those broken websites (they are broken now, due to laziness or maliciousness), I'll bet that they'd uncover helpful instructions that lay them wide open to attack again. But I suspect most casual computer users will simply avoid "that terrible web site that doesn't work any more."
If they're like my parents, they're scarred from having to take their machine in for servicing after it got loaded up with spyware and viruses, and was ultimately compromised into a spam relay.
The net effect of increased support inqueries to broken web sites might actually be that some webmasters fix their site. Those that still require unsigned scripts and controls deserve to lose business, and/or pay a higher cost in support calls.
Both of my parents are now trained to use/run antivirus and antispyware software. My mother now knows to run a firewall, (still working on my Dad) and I've set them both up with Mozilla.
Getting them on to Linux will take a bit longer. Linux isn't quite there yet (show me a distro where they'll never have to touch a command line, and things are simple and consistent, and I'll considering flying out and installing it for them).
"Need more thickness in your Windows?"
I find all this talk of evolution funny. This is simply a case (an interesting case) of variation in the genome. Get over it and move on, please.
Adams really was a brilliant writer. The "Rob was a rain god" line in So Long and Thanks For All the Fish made me actually fall out of my chair laughing (it was a truly spectacular punchline).
I still use "we demand rigidly defined areas of uncertainty" in software requirements meetings.
+1 Nerdy
If you hadn't posted it, I would've. (grin)
B5 may not have made it to your TV screen if you didn't have cable, but it did run for all 5 seasons. In fact, it was the sole reason that triggered my decision to subscribe to cable.
Having just finished watching the series again on DVD, I have to say it's still good, even if the FX are starting to look a bit cheap (most of them still stand up very well). What made Babylon 5 so good was the story of the characters, and how they lived through or drove amazing events. As in real life, these events affected them and changed them.
G'kar going from annoying thug to an enlightened religious icon for his people. Londo, going from clown to the tragic figure of puppet emperor. Even Sinclair, who we only saw a little of, going from fighter pilot to the greatest figure in Minbari history.
Babylon 5 was television's Lord of the Rings. Great events seen through the eyes of sometimes humble characters, who grow as they affect the world around them.
I'd love to see that sort of writing applied to Star Trek. In fact, we started to see that toward the end of ST:TNG with Picard's character. Imagine a series full of that. Even one or two years of the show would be worthwhile for the experience. For further evidence, I'd site Firefly, half a season was better than none at all.
Sleesh Doot... Hmmm... Is that Dutch?
No, no, no! Don't you know anything? You can't just reverse polarity willy-nilly like that. You've got to "modulate the frequency"!
OK, OK, I admit it. I watched Firefly on Fox and I liked it.
well done.
So it actually makes sense for Microsoft to aim to at least be able to run in this kind of environment. HPC is kind of the comupting industry's version of racing a Formula 1 car. The lessons you learn can actually be put back into the consumer product over the long run.
Just imagine if they'd done it earlier. We might still have the Windows shell and DOS, rather than Windows (as most of us experience it) and the Command Prompt.
Use MSN Super-butterfly effect?
Engage flying cow physics model?
Upgrade to Windows Media Player XMP?
Start simulation in PowerPoint?
Maybe they just need to go widescreen. "Right side: Waaawwwwwww!"
After turning up the audio gain for the web cam, said dinosaur was heard to vocalize: "Buh-buh-buh-buh-buh-buh!!!"
We must liberate all of that innocent Guinness from the oppressive Irish regime.
BayStar to SCO: "No, no... Not evil enough..."
Perhaps I should've surrounded my post in humor tags. Sigh...
Operator: How may I assist you today?
Grandma: I think my robot went insane.
Operator: What do you mean?
Pearl: @!#$ *&!@% ^#@% generic v,iagr4!
Operator: Was that Pearl?!
Grandma: Yes, and she's been doing this for a week. At first, it wasn't so bad, but it's been happening more and more often. And some of the things she says... well... they're horrible!
Pearl: More @#!$ pr0n for you!!
Operator: My goodness! OK, let's see, have you made any changes to her settings lately?
Grandma: Well... I did turn the reading thing on.
Operator: Reading thing?
Grandma: Yes, you know, it reads my e-mail to me... It was so nice, it told me all about this sweepstakes thingy...
Pearl: Refinance your @&*$ now!!! Low rates 4 U...
...Microsoft's Paul Allen recently invested heavily in umbrella manufacturing companies.
When asked for comment he mentioned the financial opportunities involved. "I'm also investing in Coca-Cola, because we'll need the appropriate solvent to clean up this problem looming on the horizon."
Additionally, Darl McBride was heard to blame the proliferation of open source software as the probable cause for said explosion. He recommended senior citizens purchase licenses from SCO before the impending threat affects them.
I was expecting an article about stressing out a server by putting MS Exchange on it... But this is good too.