One step away from predesigned usage pattern and you are in conflict with NM.
This is terribly wrong when system level tool force you to fight to solve some rather mundane tasks.
It is wrong when it is easier to edit manually supplicant config files to configure WiFi properly, then extend NM a little.
Regular Expressions and shells are your first best friends. It is amazing how lowly people keep thinking about shells and RE utility.
Unix toolbox contain quite a collection of instruments, that can be combined to accomplish a lot of everyday tasks with very high level of automation and reuse.
The best thing is: this approach has very linear learning curve.
You can not be sure that it will save you a lot of time, while you are still learning. But it sure will both make the work more intelligent and reduce number of stupid mistakes.
In reality Paul may become a god, say Sarupaul or Vixieron. I mean the dark one. And thus by by owning the patent (made of gold, showing words when heated) he will rule "them all" untill some little perky geek (one lived his youth in the well furnitured hole) will accidientaly drop this... uhm... patent in the... uhm... paper basket
Adding more to the performance hits i encountered through the last year working with framework is a synchonization point needed for the garbage collection. It is well known problem when GC needs to stop all managed thread to move memory around.
Not to mentioning that it's a nightmarish headache to mix managed and unmanaged memory structures in one programm.
In short: Will you try to programm resource requiring game you will soon sorry you choosed this platform.
I know the one and only way how dynamical system with multiple agressive can achieve a state of relative equilibrium. It's all about constant oscillations.
To be more precise: if someone, You for instance, can supply solution that will cease lobbyists activity and in the same time make community happy - offer it.
Meanwile all we can do is to apply our force so that oscillation move in our favor.
With time passing it seems to me that all this "test driven programming" promoted by people who completely forget about basical design.
Realy! Who will care today about all those boring things like FSM analysis and formal task description! Who needs deep understanding of what his/her software does, when one just can test small part of it!
I just want to emphasize following simple thought: one may invent new perpetuum mobile without slight undrstanding of physics. And those invention nowdays aren't even considered anymore.
Computer science is matured enough to be utilized in everyday work. One have no need to study another perpetuum mobile invention guide. Just remember you classes.
I hope that in my lifetime analitical computer science will take its place in program developmen instead of witchcraft spells.
I just want to ask those adpets of XP: how you will ensure that small change in the code won't affect quite distant code parts?
~sigh~
Some of you people simply have NO idea how code works in the real world, i am sure of it.
Which ones, i'd like to ask?
I do have an idea. Even couple of them:o)
Hacking perl scripts is so unlike developing the large OO software that drives most information systems.
The word 'most' used is inadequate!
For two reasons:
If You meant most by quantity then You can't be wrong more.
If You meant most by significance then You again can't prove Your avaluation.
Nah! I'm sure You made or participate in at least one realy big project. And thus You surely know that refactoring interfaces is a dead sign to the all project. Hence we say "NO!" to interface refactoring. And we change interface at the points of major architecture redesigns only. Do You agree?
We of course may pee with a boiling liquid each time we mended some improperly realized method. Or hit our chest in proud when we "refactor" wait-loop.
Realy I'd like to know: does anybody here think that poorly designed architecture, module responsibility and interaction interfaces could be mended by stitches and patches? I don't think so...
Don't know how the term leak fills to mentioned nonprogrammers but in programmers' slang the word leak has distinct meaning. And it does diverge from what Joel use it for.
I think that term ooze would suite better in this case. It's possesses a kind of dirtiness to itself and the fealing the word 'ooze' gives me fits good with the matter of described problem.:o)
Back to the article. To be serious, i think that Joel mixed all things as examples of 'Leaky abstraction' to no purpose. Too different situations make concept to fall apart. Here what i mean:
In case of tcp/ip it denotes limits of abstraction. And regardless of programmer background every sane man should now those limits do exist.
In case of page faults it's a matter of competence - there is no abstraction at all. You either do know how your code is compiled and executed or you don't. It's the same when you know what the phrase in a given language do realy mean or you don't. I simplify here.
In the case of C++ strings i saw the only good example. What in my opinion the experience of STL and string class usage tells in this case is: one should understand the underlying mechanics fully before rely on abstraction behaviour.
In programming it is realy simple to tell will the given 'abstraction' present you with an easter egg or not: if you can imagine FSM for the abstraction you will definitely know when to use it.
Just my two cents:
I think that with the technical experience you have it's important to train social skills. Having mastered basics of human interactions you will find it much more easy to convince potential boss without stressing his/her self-esteem.
If you can demonstrate your ability to competently work around complex social problems related to your main profession then you most probably become a very valuable worker in short time.
As far as i know it becomes more and more popular to point attention to communication abilities of team managers. You may claim position of high to top technical manager with such skill.
My opinion is that it may become a perfect replacement for floppy size storage.
I switched to 8cm cd-rw and happy with it. No data losses after subway ride, for instance. And my previous 8cm rw was badly broken in inside tracks but was still writable and readable in the outside.
You may also notice numerous complains about flash durability as well in the forums. In the same forums you will se how many peoples want to have device all in one: mp3 player, digital cam and handheld storage. One buddie even asked if his Canon D60 can serve him as file storage device:o)
IMO up to now cd-rw kind of storage remains most durable and handy for the sane price. And device of the told size will undoubtedly become a hit when it will be offered for the told price. If any:o)
How don't You know that the thing You've described is already done so many times in FPS?
Remember all this psychological stuff about big gun association most men do? Remember what does acronym BFG meant in doom?
Thus reversed games still made to appeal mostly to men.
First of all i should note that i won't put under the question your expirience.
I just want to point on some huge project being in development for long time, that accept entries by numerous developers and blah-blah: www.xfree86.org
Let us put aside comparisons of X and Kernel. There are other projects i know of that are huge and...
I agree that CVS do have very annoying limitations. I just would like to state that in my not so humble opinion BitKeepr has not so much real advantages over CVS for it to worth so much attention.
"If someone broke into your house would you sue the lock maker? Likewise, if someone deflates your tires you have no case against Firestone."
Am I wrong if I say that in most countries the lying advertisement is a good reason for court examination?
If lock manufacturer said that it's product can withstand that preassure and the lock can't, this lock manufacturer is liable. If software manufacturer states that it's product can withstand given kinds of malicious attacks and the product can't who should we blame?
BTW: if some company, MS for example, advertise some product as being secure, without specifying what kind of attacks it can withstand, then this company, MS for example, should be liable for lie.
I may be mistaken, but i think that most whines are being heard from companies that do nothing on their own. Just relying on available software and trying to sell it in embeded market is bad aproach anyway. I see it as those companies take open source soft, compile it for choosen arch and ship it for money.
Then these peoples complain about their poor sells or small income. They just selling other's work doing nothing themselves.
That's the cause that there are so few good embeded linux applications.
Slashdot Mirror
One step away from predesigned usage pattern and you are in conflict with NM. This is terribly wrong when system level tool force you to fight to solve some rather mundane tasks. It is wrong when it is easier to edit manually supplicant config files to configure WiFi properly, then extend NM a little.
Regular Expressions and shells are your first best friends. It is amazing how lowly people keep thinking about shells and RE utility. Unix toolbox contain quite a collection of instruments, that can be combined to accomplish a lot of everyday tasks with very high level of automation and reuse. The best thing is: this approach has very linear learning curve. You can not be sure that it will save you a lot of time, while you are still learning. But it sure will both make the work more intelligent and reduce number of stupid mistakes.
In reality Paul may become a god, say Sarupaul or Vixieron. I mean the dark one. ... uhm ... patent in the ... uhm ... paper basket
And thus by by owning the patent (made of gold, showing words when heated) he will rule "them all" untill some little perky geek (one lived his youth in the well furnitured hole) will accidientaly drop this
Oh! Wait!
Here i smell terrorism fighting again!It'll be in the news soon: spam retailation prohibited because if you don't like spam you're helping terrorists!
Adding more to the performance hits i encountered through the last year working with framework is a synchonization point needed for the garbage collection. It is well known problem when GC needs to stop all managed thread to move memory around.
Not to mentioning that it's a nightmarish headache to mix managed and unmanaged memory structures in one programm.
In short: Will you try to programm resource requiring game you will soon sorry you choosed this platform.
To be more precise: if someone, You for instance, can supply solution that will cease lobbyists activity and in the same time make community happy - offer it.
Meanwile all we can do is to apply our force so that oscillation move in our favor.
Realy! Who will care today about all those boring things like FSM analysis and formal task description! Who needs deep understanding of what his/her software does, when one just can test small part of it!
I just want to emphasize following simple thought: one may invent new perpetuum mobile without slight undrstanding of physics. And those invention nowdays aren't even considered anymore.
Computer science is matured enough to be utilized in everyday work. One have no need to study another perpetuum mobile invention guide. Just remember you classes.
I hope that in my lifetime analitical computer science will take its place in program developmen instead of witchcraft spells.
I just want to ask those adpets of XP: how you will ensure that small change in the code won't affect quite distant code parts?
I do have an idea. Even couple of them
For two reasons:
- If You meant most by quantity then You can't be wrong more.
- If You meant most by significance then You again can't prove Your avaluation.
Nah! I'm sure You made or participate in at least one realy big project. And thus You surely know that refactoring interfaces is a dead sign to the all project. Hence we say "NO!" to interface refactoring. And we change interface at the points of major architecture redesigns only. Do You agree?We of course may pee with a boiling liquid each time we mended some improperly realized method. Or hit our chest in proud when we "refactor" wait-loop.
Realy I'd like to know: does anybody here think that poorly designed architecture, module responsibility and interaction interfaces could be mended by stitches and patches? I don't think so...
I think that term ooze would suite better in this case. It's possesses a kind of dirtiness to itself and the fealing the word 'ooze' gives me fits good with the matter of described problem. :o)
Back to the article. To be serious, i think that Joel mixed all things as examples of 'Leaky abstraction' to no purpose. Too different situations make concept to fall apart. Here what i mean:
In case of tcp/ip it denotes limits of abstraction. And regardless of programmer background every sane man should now those limits do exist.
In case of page faults it's a matter of competence - there is no abstraction at all. You either do know how your code is compiled and executed or you don't. It's the same when you know what the phrase in a given language do realy mean or you don't. I simplify here.
In the case of C++ strings i saw the only good example. What in my opinion the experience of STL and string class usage tells in this case is: one should understand the underlying mechanics fully before rely on abstraction behaviour.
In programming it is realy simple to tell will the given 'abstraction' present you with an easter egg or not: if you can imagine FSM for the abstraction you will definitely know when to use it.
I think that with the technical experience you have it's important to train social skills. Having mastered basics of human interactions you will find it much more easy to convince potential boss without stressing his/her self-esteem.
If you can demonstrate your ability to competently work around complex social problems related to your main profession then you most probably become a very valuable worker in short time.
As far as i know it becomes more and more popular to point attention to communication abilities of team managers. You may claim position of high to top technical manager with such skill.
My opinion is that it may become a perfect replacement for floppy size storage. :o) :o)
I switched to 8cm cd-rw and happy with it. No data losses after subway ride, for instance. And my previous 8cm rw was badly broken in inside tracks but was still writable and readable in the outside.
You may also notice numerous complains about flash durability as well in the forums. In the same forums you will se how many peoples want to have device all in one: mp3 player, digital cam and handheld storage. One buddie even asked if his Canon D60 can serve him as file storage device
IMO up to now cd-rw kind of storage remains most durable and handy for the sane price. And device of the told size will undoubtedly become a hit when it will be offered for the told price. If any
How don't You know that the thing You've described is already done so many times in FPS?
Remember all this psychological stuff about big gun association most men do? Remember what does acronym BFG meant in doom?
Thus reversed games still made to appeal mostly to men.
First of all i should note that i won't put under the question your expirience.
I just want to point on some huge project being in development for long time, that accept entries by numerous developers and blah-blah: www.xfree86.org
Let us put aside comparisons of X and Kernel. There are other projects i know of that are huge and ...
I agree that CVS do have very annoying limitations. I just would like to state that in my not so humble opinion BitKeepr has not so much real advantages over CVS for it to worth so much attention.
Am I wrong if I say that in most countries the lying advertisement is a good reason for court examination?
If lock manufacturer said that it's product can withstand that preassure and the lock can't, this lock manufacturer is liable. If software manufacturer states that it's product can withstand given kinds of malicious attacks and the product can't who should we blame?
BTW: if some company, MS for example, advertise some product as being secure, without specifying what kind of attacks it can withstand, then this company, MS for example, should be liable for lie.
Then these peoples complain about their poor sells or small income. They just selling other's work doing nothing themselves.
That's the cause that there are so few good embeded linux applications.