Yes, many many times. By far, the bulk of my career as a programmer. And for quite a bit of it as a C++ programmer. Also, visual basic, 5, 6 and.net, C#, powerbuilder, and various flavors of SQL.
I am lead of a development team just now, in fact. I have worked on the committees established to publish coding standards for a couple of the places I worked.
Most of the coding standards I have run into are more about formatting and clarity rather than "avoid these language features".
I dont really see how coding standards fit into this, though. It is not like Java/VB/C# dont require a coding standard, and dont allow enough flexibility for your developers to go all over the map. Not as much, but enough.
But on coding standards. If you have a coding standard, ( and you expect to enforce it ), you have code reviews. If you dont have those, then some small number will adhere to the standard, most wont. If you use your coding standards to subset your language that is your choice. My preference would be to tell my team to code for maintainablity and clarity, and be darn sure they understand KISS. But simple means as simple as possible, but not simpler. And use the code reviews to educate on language features to avoid, should any crop up. Except for one guy that came up from VB who thought that assigning to a character arrary ( pointer ) would copy and reallocate the string, I have not had much need to do this. I would prefer not to be taking tools out of my programmers hands.
Personally, though, I dont find C++ to be ridiculous. I find it to be a very powerful language with a ton of warts. And most of those warts have been the pain points that lead the developers of Java and C# to have the language they are today. Without that learning experience, I doubt those two at least would be where they are today. But I personally dont care to have my hands tied behind my back by language designers because there are a large number of people for whom the tool is a bad choice.
All of that does not mean that I will only use C++, I prefer to use the best tool for the job, and sometimes that is C++, and sometimes it is not.
How so? Would you purchase your machine with a Microsoft OS only to have some of the proceeds of the sale go to SUSE or Redhat, even though you had not purchased a product from them, due to the agreements the OEM had to sign in order to get the lowest pricing from SUSE or Redhat?
I vote only for myself -- each and every line of each and every ballot. In my mind, I win. I picked the candidate best suited to represent my family and I.
And your impact on the system was?
You have a very good point. But voting for yourself did nothing to help ( or hurt ), IMO. The real problem is that people just dont care enough, by and large, to get educated, to have open minds, to vote more than their perceived economic desires.
Here is why clear and unambiguous language will not happen in patents...
Once you reduce the idea to clear language, the obviousness of most patents will be strikingly obvious. Most patents will no longer pass the laugh test, and would be rejected.
It sounded like you were saying that the delivery of messages over a wireless link was non-obvious. Not sure if you meant that or the reverse. To me, once you have the concept of delivering messages down, choosing another medium to send it over seems the height of obvious. I have not read the patents, so I dont know if there is more to it than that.
Sure they do! Look at their advertisements, then look at their actions.
Heck, I keep seeing Cox communications "your friend in the digital age" commercials, right after talking to a customer service rep about a charge applied to my account because their online payment system is not quite right. Would not take the charge off, even though I did everything as best I could. ( their payment system told me I had paid, but I had put the account suffixes on the information I provided, so the charges did not go thru. 2 weeks later they finally let me know, I settled the bill the next day ( I got the notice that night, so... ), then I get a bill for the whole amount + late charges. )
My friend indeed. I could go on and on, but you can probably provide your own examples.
The Lexington and Saratoga ( CV-2 and CV-3 ) where turbo electric.
Steam provided the generation, not diesel.
There were also a ( small ) number of battleships with turbo electric.
Reason it was done here was that the best efficiency of the steam power plant required high RPM's. Double reduction gearing was not commonplace then, so the decoupling allowed the propellers to turn slow, at their best rates, and the turbine to turn fast, at its best rate.
I heard that in one set of manuevers, that one of the TE drive battleships was able to avoid collision due to the fast switch from forward to reverse and back again.
The Lexington is sometimes critizied on it's plant, as she took a torpedo that wrecked a bus in the system. Most knowledgeable reviews seem to recognize that steam plants have their own vulnerabilities, and to condemn the whole system for that was unfair.
Once double reduction gearing was capable of production for this scale of operation ( 100,000+ ( 212,000 in the Iowa class ) shp ) regular steam plants took over again.
I'll probably be tarred as a radical, but I dont think corporations should have any say or other impact in the political arena. Bent or unbent, however you want to look at it.
When examining the "good" vs "evil" types of questions, I keep seeing the saying that corporations exist to maximize stockholder value.
Each of those stockholders already has a political voice, there is no reason for that voice to be doubled.
Also, this paints the corporations as uninterested in politics excepting how legislation can be changed to maximize stockholder value. This is such a "stomache" / low level drive thing that I cant see including this viewpoint. We dont let dogs vote, do we? Why? They are unthinking beyond the drive to reproduce and eat and survive. Same with corporations, they are unthinking ( in general ) beyond the desire to increase profits.
That all said, I dont think I paint every corporation with the same brush. There are many many many that are bent, as you say. There are some few ( I hope, anyway ) that are better than that.
I'm lucky enough to be able to work from home part of the week.
Excepting for watching something multiple times, that is *exactly* what I do.
Course, now that Cox has bungled billing, I may well be sending the DVR back ( SA 8000 ), and watching my huge ( well, more than 3, anyway... ) DVD catalog.
I recall doing IT for a relatively small shop in the early eighties, and after a while, I stopped putting user's names on the software installed. I just put in the company name for the user name as well. I can imagine that a big place like Merck might well stockpile and "recycle" machines, and would probably not put user names in, not having them at the time of setup.
So, now to the hopefully humourous part:
To properly incriminate someone, run some incriminating google searchs from their machine. Follow that with a few documents with tracking changes "on" where i erase some incriminating statement and leave that in place but just in the changes, so it looked like they were erased.
Yes, I could have asked questions of each of the points along the way for the original posts. Color me lazy. Some seem to read the decending trail of point and counter point and reply as they go. I will take that into consideration in the future, as you do have a point there.
I was not asked a question, I asked a question ( neither I nor metlin have an answer to either question ).
I understand that there may be some that play games, I was not.
I believe I am doing my part. You go right ahead and do yours, or not, as you see fit.
My apologies for annoying, I assure you that was not my intent.
I am not qualified to provide any real substantiation for either side in the discussion, I, like you, would like to see the arguement ( both for and against ) developed logically.
One person ( A ) made a claim ( capitalism drives freedom ).
Another ( B ) made a counter claim ( capitalism does not drive freedom ).
You asked ( B ) to substantiate that counter claim. I think it reasonable to presume that you were arguing on the side of ( A ). Perhaps not. You were certainly arguing against the counter claim.
I asked you to substantiate the reverse. Can you show or prove how capitalism drives freedom?
You may not have made a claim directly, but you did put yourself into the discussion. Perhaps you were looking to explore the logic chain that led that person to make that claim? Perhaps I am interested in exploring the logic chain that led to the other claim ( and in the original claim too ).
"I've seen something that looks like a turtle, so everyone has to be a turtle" && "Wonderful Slashdot logic. Good job, though."
Is it not possible to disagree with a position without being disagreeable?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, many many times. By far, the bulk of my career as a .net, C#, powerbuilder, and
programmer. And for quite a bit of it as a C++ programmer.
Also, visual basic, 5, 6 and
various flavors of SQL.
I am lead of a development team just now, in fact. I have
worked on the committees established to publish coding standards
for a couple of the places I worked.
Most of the coding standards I have run into are more about
formatting and clarity rather than "avoid these language
features".
I dont really see how coding standards fit into this, though.
It is not like Java/VB/C# dont require a coding standard, and
dont allow enough flexibility for your developers to go all over
the map. Not as much, but enough.
But on coding standards. If you have a coding standard,
( and you expect to enforce it ), you have code reviews. If you
dont have those, then some small number will adhere to the
standard, most wont. If you use your coding standards to
subset your language that is your choice. My preference
would be to tell my team to code for maintainablity and
clarity, and be darn sure they understand KISS. But
simple means as simple as possible, but not simpler. And use
the code reviews to educate on language features to avoid,
should any crop up. Except for one guy that came up from VB
who thought that assigning to a character arrary ( pointer )
would copy and reallocate the string, I have not had much
need to do this. I would prefer not to be taking tools out
of my programmers hands.
Personally, though, I dont find C++ to be ridiculous. I find it
to be a very powerful language with a ton of warts. And most of
those warts have been the pain points that lead the developers of
Java and C# to have the language they are today. Without that
learning experience, I doubt those two at least would be where
they are today. But I personally dont care to have my hands
tied behind my back by language designers because there are a
large number of people for whom the tool is a bad choice.
All of that does not mean that I will only use C++, I prefer to
use the best tool for the job, and sometimes that is C++, and
sometimes it is not.
You cant find the discpline to write simple code within?
You must have it imposed from without?
Perhaps it is not the tools that need changing.
No, see, this is how we anti-Microsoft buffoons take down the giant.
One chair at a time.
Rumour begets smashed chair, smashed chair begets rumour until the giant is bankrupt.
That and buying Xboxes.
I'll be here all week, tip your cow.
My company, One Bun productions, stands ready on both fronts!
How so? Would you purchase your machine with a Microsoft OS only to have some
of the proceeds of the sale go to SUSE or Redhat, even though you
had not purchased a product from them, due to the agreements the OEM had
to sign in order to get the lowest pricing from SUSE or Redhat?
And your impact on the system was?
You have a very good point. But voting for yourself
did nothing to help ( or hurt ), IMO. The real problem
is that people just dont care enough, by and large, to
get educated, to have open minds, to vote more than
their perceived economic desires.
I think you meant
Woosh
I'm waiting until Netcraft confirms it.
Here is why clear and unambiguous language will not happen in patents...
Once you reduce the idea to clear language, the obviousness
of most patents will be strikingly obvious. Most patents will
no longer pass the laugh test, and would be rejected.
It sounded like you were saying that the delivery of messages
over a wireless link was non-obvious. Not sure if you meant
that or the reverse. To me, once you have the concept of delivering
messages down, choosing another medium to send it over seems the
height of obvious. I have not read the patents, so I dont know
if there is more to it than that.
No, it should have been GooooooooogAOL
Sure they do! Look at their advertisements, then look at their actions.
Heck, I keep seeing Cox communications "your friend in the digital age"
commercials, right after talking to a customer service rep about a charge
applied to my account because their online payment system is not quite
right. Would not take the charge off, even though I did everything as
best I could. ( their payment system told me I had paid, but I had put
the account suffixes on the information I provided, so the charges did
not go thru. 2 weeks later they finally let me know, I settled the
bill the next day ( I got the notice that night, so... ), then I get a
bill for the whole amount + late charges. )
My friend indeed. I could go on and on, but you can probably provide
your own examples.
The Lexington and Saratoga ( CV-2 and CV-3 ) where turbo electric.
Steam provided the generation, not diesel.
There were also a ( small ) number of battleships with turbo electric.
Reason it was done here was that the best efficiency of the steam power
plant required high RPM's. Double reduction gearing was not commonplace
then, so the decoupling allowed the propellers to turn slow, at their best
rates, and the turbine to turn fast, at its best rate.
I heard that in one set of manuevers, that one of the TE drive battleships
was able to avoid collision due to the fast switch from forward to reverse
and back again.
The Lexington is sometimes critizied on it's plant, as she took a torpedo
that wrecked a bus in the system. Most knowledgeable reviews seem to
recognize that steam plants have their own vulnerabilities, and to condemn
the whole system for that was unfair.
Once double reduction gearing was capable of production for this scale of
operation ( 100,000+ ( 212,000 in the Iowa class ) shp ) regular steam
plants took over again.
All that, in the 1930's.
Love it!
I'll probably be tarred as a radical, but I dont think corporations
should have any say or other impact in the political arena. Bent or
unbent, however you want to look at it.
When examining the "good" vs "evil" types of questions, I keep seeing
the saying that corporations exist to maximize stockholder value.
Each of those stockholders already has a political voice, there is no
reason for that voice to be doubled.
Also, this paints the corporations as uninterested in politics excepting
how legislation can be changed to maximize stockholder value. This is
such a "stomache" / low level drive thing that I cant see including this
viewpoint. We dont let dogs vote, do we? Why? They are unthinking
beyond the drive to reproduce and eat and survive. Same with corporations,
they are unthinking ( in general ) beyond the desire to increase profits.
That all said, I dont think I paint every corporation with the same brush.
There are many many many that are bent, as you say. There are some few
( I hope, anyway ) that are better than that.
Interesting...
I dont recall saying I believed in Reaganomics. I
didnt think I was speaking to economics, but to politics.
What I meant to impart was that within the political
spectrum, the various interested parties have some
value to add.
And one could say that Republicans in the US are a whole lot like fascists.
Except maybe how about both sides drop the rigidity and name calling
and realize that both "sides" have something of value to contribute.
Na, that would make sense. I know we cant have that.
Oh, Suzy Q
Oh, Suzy Q!
Oh, Suzy Q, I voted for you, Suzy Q.
I'm lucky enough to be able to work from home part of the week.
Excepting for watching something multiple times, that is *exactly* what I do.
Course, now that Cox has bungled billing, I may well be sending the DVR back
( SA 8000 ), and watching my huge ( well, more than 3, anyway... ) DVD catalog.
It does, but who thinks of that when rebuilding a box?
It would not have occured to me, until this thread.
It's even probable that the user name is "Merck".
I recall doing IT for a relatively small shop in the early
eighties, and after a while, I stopped putting user's names
on the software installed. I just put in the company name
for the user name as well. I can imagine that a big place
like Merck might well stockpile and "recycle" machines,
and would probably not put user names in, not having them
at the time of setup.
So, now to the hopefully humourous part:
To properly incriminate someone, run some incriminating
google searchs from their machine. Follow that with a
few documents with tracking changes "on" where i erase
some incriminating statement and leave that in place but
just in the changes, so it looked like they were erased.
Anything else?
Hell no! Those is goverment issue, and valuable!
With the F-16, you strap *on* the Plane.
No, you dont know what I was really doing.
Yes, I could have asked questions of each of the points along
the way for the original posts. Color me lazy. Some seem to read
the decending trail of point and counter point and reply
as they go. I will take that into consideration in the
future, as you do have a point there.
I was not asked a question, I asked a question ( neither
I nor metlin have an answer to either question ).
I understand that there may be some that play games,
I was not.
I believe I am doing my part. You go right ahead
and do yours, or not, as you see fit.
My apologies for annoying, I assure you that was not my intent.
I am not qualified to provide any real substantiation for
either side in the discussion, I, like you, would like to
see the arguement ( both for and against ) developed logically.
One person ( A ) made a claim ( capitalism drives freedom ).
Another ( B ) made a counter claim ( capitalism does not drive freedom ).
You asked ( B ) to substantiate that counter claim. I think it reasonable
to presume that you were arguing on the side of ( A ). Perhaps not. You
were certainly arguing against the counter claim.
I asked you to substantiate the reverse. Can you show or prove how
capitalism drives freedom?
You may not have made a claim directly, but you did put yourself
into the discussion. Perhaps you were looking to explore the
logic chain that led that person to make that claim? Perhaps
I am interested in exploring the logic chain that led to the
other claim ( and in the original claim too ).
"I've seen something that looks like a turtle, so everyone has to be a turtle" && "Wonderful Slashdot logic. Good job, though."
Is it not possible to disagree with a position without being disagreeable?
Can you substantiate/prove the reverse?
I see freedom as a driver/enabler of capitalism, not the reverse.