Sadly,formating rules, variable names, number of comments, comment formats, etc. etc. and checklists of pet issues are the easiest things to spot in a group scan of the code.
I had the same experience. No one was willing to spend the substantial amount of time necessary to do an in depth code review, so the only things we found were minor syntactic things.
The question is, are code reviews really effective? I worked on a project where we did extensive code reviews and we rarely found any real bugs. Going through a program line by line and finding a non-obvious bug is very difficult. Also, a thorough code review is also very time consuming. It takes almost as much time to review code as it does to write it in the first place. When you have four or so people reviewing every line written, your productivity for the project goes way down. In my judgment, code reviews just were not cost effective for our project.
OK. I had a course in the theory of psychological testing, so I know the answer. IQ tests are designed to (and sometimes do) correlate with things such as success in school, general problem solving ability, occupational success in fields such as science, etc. To say that they measure “intelligence” is a very vague way of saying this. And, of course, the correlation may not be very strong in some cases because of the limitations of the tests, and the influence of other factors.
A number of years ago, I worked on a team that developed this 500,000 line FORTRAN program for the analysis of scientific data. The code was very modular, but the data was all over the place. A change in the data in one part of the program could cause unforeseen problems in another part. Object oriented programming helps prevent this problem by organizing the code and the data it acts upon into objects. In my experience, object oriented programming is one of the biggest programming breakthroughs since higher level languages. I just can't see an institution with the reputation of CMU deprecating this methodology.
Every math course I took helps me think about the algorithms I develop at work, just as every English course I took helps me write and communicate. I took a lot of math that I do not use directly, but I don't consider any of it wasted.
Philosophical journals have the same rigorous standards for papers as journals for the various sciences
Philosophical journals may have rigorous standards, but not the same standards. In science, a question is only considered meaningful if an experiment can be designed (at least conceptually) to answer it. I took several philosophy courses in college, and I did not see that standard applied very often.
You make good points. The balance between encouraging productivity and growth, providing jobs, and providing for the common welfare is much more complex than most people realize.
The best thing to do is to have two sets of flights. One set where no one gets body scans, and other flights where everyone get body scans. Let evolution solve this problem.
"as close as possible in both languages" means that you've written code in at least one of those languages which sacrificed efficiency
I agree. For example, the most efficient way to allocate small transient objects in C++, is to put them on the stack. Something you can’t do in Java. I love Java for portable, non-cpu intensive applications. But if you really need to run fast, C++ is the preferred language.
the few jobs not being done in China, India and Pakistan?
The wierd thing is, we have people in my (American) office that were born in China, India, and Pakistan. They (or their parents) came over here to get jobs.
Doctors and Lawyers have learned to value the worth of their time. Why haven't developers?
It could be that we can still make a comfortable upper middle class living and still give something back to society. In fact, even doctors and lawyers (despite their reputations for greed) sometimes do pro bono work.
All this experiment shows is that the monkeys are willing to accept more risk under certain circumstances. At no time does a monkey behave irrationally (such as buying two grapes when they could have three grapes). Also, the experiment does not reflect real market conditions. Consumers usually have a much more accurate idea of what they are going to get for their money. But people are drawing all sorts of goofy conclusions from the experiment, "there are no rational actors", "economic models are all wrong", "the East Germans knew the right way to run an economy", etc.
I would recommend starting with C#, also. One big advantage is the excellent and free IDE available from Microsoft (C# Express). There are also some excellent books available, such as Programming Microsoft Windows with C#, by Petzold. Also, C# is similar in syntax and structure to Java and C++, so you can more easily transition to these languages, if needed.
First I have a sequence (this isn't really it), such as sunDAY, monDAY, etc. Then I have an appended sequence, for example sunDAY!!1, monDAY!!2, etc. Then, if necessary, I can put a sticky on my computer (since IT makes me change my password every week) with the sequence number, say 1 for sunDAY!!1. If IT requires longer passwords, then I can use more exclamation characters. It's easy to remember, and complex to crack.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd rather listen to an IT dude than a lawyer, and most of the politicians trying to resolve this thing are lawyers.
I agree 100%. Of course, there is no way most software teams can consistently hit schedule with code reviews.
I had the same experience. No one was willing to spend the substantial amount of time necessary to do an in depth code review, so the only things we found were minor syntactic things.
The question is, are code reviews really effective? I worked on a project where we did extensive code reviews and we rarely found any real bugs. Going through a program line by line and finding a non-obvious bug is very difficult. Also, a thorough code review is also very time consuming. It takes almost as much time to review code as it does to write it in the first place. When you have four or so people reviewing every line written, your productivity for the project goes way down. In my judgment, code reviews just were not cost effective for our project.
How many of those standard legal forms are filled out by the lawyer's secretary instead of the lawyer? I bet around 90%.
Why do I have a bad feeling about this?
Actually, I was aiming for "funny" rather than "insightful".
It means he owns all of the rocks he brought back.
OK. I had a course in the theory of psychological testing, so I know the answer. IQ tests are designed to (and sometimes do) correlate with things such as success in school, general problem solving ability, occupational success in fields such as science, etc. To say that they measure “intelligence” is a very vague way of saying this. And, of course, the correlation may not be very strong in some cases because of the limitations of the tests, and the influence of other factors.
Right. From what I read, King Steve has to approve all new products developed at Apple and he demands quality. What a clown.
A number of years ago, I worked on a team that developed this 500,000 line FORTRAN program for the analysis of scientific data. The code was very modular, but the data was all over the place. A change in the data in one part of the program could cause unforeseen problems in another part. Object oriented programming helps prevent this problem by organizing the code and the data it acts upon into objects. In my experience, object oriented programming is one of the biggest programming breakthroughs since higher level languages. I just can't see an institution with the reputation of CMU deprecating this methodology.
I agree. There was a big increase in Java's UI (Swing) performance with the release of JDK 1.6. For CPU intensive applications I would still use C++.
Every math course I took helps me think about the algorithms I develop at work, just as every English course I took helps me write and communicate. I took a lot of math that I do not use directly, but I don't consider any of it wasted.
Philosophical journals may have rigorous standards, but not the same standards. In science, a question is only considered meaningful if an experiment can be designed (at least conceptually) to answer it. I took several philosophy courses in college, and I did not see that standard applied very often.
Now they just need to recruit spies that can remember 27 character passwords without writing them down.
These politicians are from Utah and they are stealing for the people of Utah. You don't vote out the crooks when they are your crooks.
You make good points. The balance between encouraging productivity and growth, providing jobs, and providing for the common welfare is much more complex than most people realize.
The best thing to do is to have two sets of flights. One set where no one gets body scans, and other flights where everyone get body scans. Let evolution solve this problem.
I agree. For example, the most efficient way to allocate small transient objects in C++, is to put them on the stack. Something you can’t do in Java. I love Java for portable, non-cpu intensive applications. But if you really need to run fast, C++ is the preferred language.
The wierd thing is, we have people in my (American) office that were born in China, India, and Pakistan. They (or their parents) came over here to get jobs.
It could be that we can still make a comfortable upper middle class living and still give something back to society. In fact, even doctors and lawyers (despite their reputations for greed) sometimes do pro bono work.
All this experiment shows is that the monkeys are willing to accept more risk under certain circumstances. At no time does a monkey behave irrationally (such as buying two grapes when they could have three grapes). Also, the experiment does not reflect real market conditions. Consumers usually have a much more accurate idea of what they are going to get for their money. But people are drawing all sorts of goofy conclusions from the experiment, "there are no rational actors", "economic models are all wrong", "the East Germans knew the right way to run an economy", etc.
I would recommend starting with C#, also. One big advantage is the excellent and free IDE available from Microsoft (C# Express). There are also some excellent books available, such as Programming Microsoft Windows with C#, by Petzold. Also, C# is similar in syntax and structure to Java and C++, so you can more easily transition to these languages, if needed.
First I have a sequence (this isn't really it), such as sunDAY, monDAY, etc. Then I have an appended sequence, for example sunDAY!!1, monDAY!!2, etc. Then, if necessary, I can put a sticky on my computer (since IT makes me change my password every week) with the sequence number, say 1 for sunDAY!!1. If IT requires longer passwords, then I can use more exclamation characters. It's easy to remember, and complex to crack.
I guess we could send you George Bush to set things straight.