One thing which I usually find is that developers don't understand what managers are for.
Most developers think that a manager is just someone who has no clue but the power to bother you.
To put it simple: The developer knows and the manager decides.
It's the job of the developer to understand the situation and come up with several (at least two) possible solutions for a problem, state them in clear words, list the advantages and disadvantages and make sure the manager understands them.
Then, the manager will make a decision. An educated decision.
But often, people don't bother to tell their managers what's wrong and why it is wrong and then, they wonder when the manager makes a bad decision.
I have found that it's very simple to get along with management as long as you keep them posted and you know your facts. When they grill you and you can stand your ground (and you can only do this when you know what you're talking about), then they will start to trust you and your life will suddenly become very easy. Note that even saying "I don't know but I'll find out" is "knowing what you are talking about".
Managers are just people, too. They know that they don't know as much as you do about the problem. They feel uneasy about this. Make them understand and they will be your friends.
Try it. It might be an effort but it really helps to get what you want (a bigger machine, less distractions by managers who want to know what is going on, etc):-)
When I had to do FORTRAN, I hated to have to put one tab or eight spaces in front of every line (that's where you put labels in FORTRAN), so my first contact with languages which depend on a certain input format was a bad one.
Then I found Python. I didn't like it in the beginning but I found that Python code is very easy to read because it enforces a certain format.
Of course, Python doesn't repeat the biggest mistake of Make: It doesn't bother if you use spaces or tabs as long as your tabsize is 8.
And the amount of screen space which can be saved if you don't need block parentheses anymore, is amazing...
I have written code in C, C++, Java, various shell dialects, Tcl/Tk and Python.
Python has a better OO system than any other language, it has a better syntax than anything else and it is easier to understand than any programming language I've seen so far.
It is a bit slow, though, and when you must have a grip on yourself or you can easily write very compact code that does amazing things... that you don't understand anymore. Oh, and the GUI is still a weak point (it uses Tk and that means that there are thousands of extensions which don't quite fit what you need so you have to write it yourself, again).
But I've yet to find a language which even comes close to the power Python gives me and to the speed one can write solid code in this language.
Something I once saw might be interesting. It was a few years before anyone thought about HTML and the basic idea was to create a "well defined" data stream from arbitrary data (something XML will do, for example). Then you could use various filters which work only on the data in the stream which they know and pass the rest on unmodified.
Then the next step is to identify the available data streams. You should probably allow to insert these filters in different places, for example in the data stream between keyboard/mouse and a GUI element, between GUI elements (for example, display additional data when some valid data has been entered in an element; think of the URL entry fields in web browsers that show the know matches).
Another stream will be the various data streams the application generates and reads (ie. the config files or everything the user enters in, for example, a word processor).
And lastly, you will probably want to define additional connection points for these pipes so you can remotely control the application (for example, you could create a new mega application by connecting several existing apps just like you would do in a shell).
Some things to look at: RMI and CORBA for remote connectivity, XML for the data exchange format, ARexx and Tcl for how to open an application for remote control on a higher level than RMI/CORBA.
What was the reason to create a programming language which is more complicated (and thus harder to learn and use) than its predecessor ? Scripting languages show that there is a strong urge for more simple things. In C++, you essentially must be a C++ compiler to understand what the code really does. IMHO, this is a move in the wrong direction. Why did you chose that direction ? Or was this no issue when the language was designed ?
-- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla "(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
In the early 1990s a very notorious Amiga "fan" did upset the Amiga community. He would hang around in popular Amiga IRC channels and NEWS groups. He was very knowledgeable about Amiga and he used his knowledge to disagree with anyone.
And he was a bot. Acording to my memory, his core was about 30k and he had 50k of "memory" (ie. information about Amiga deficiencies). In the end, everybody hated this "guy" and we were all very upset when we finally found out:-)
The point is: The program was *really* good. Have a look at old Amiga NEWS postings (if you have them; deja.com hasn't:-/): He/it did not babble. He could counter arguments. AFAIK, the author still has the code. He said that it was quite simple because the topic was very narrow and it was easy to generate the answers (it just had to select the right one). But I think that Danny also collected new arguments (ie. he learned new stuff). He got his first "basic" arguments by hanging around on IRC and NEWS and just listening. In the end, he acted completely autonomous (ie. he read by himself and answered automatically).
Anybody remembering more ?
This program will pass the touring test:-)
-- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla "(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
Isn't there a way to set the polarisation to a certain angle without destroying the particle (if I would use a polarisation filter, I would just be able to tell if the photon had a certain polarisation (it came through) or not (it didn't came through)). With that, I could manipulate the photon in New York before it is measured in Moskau. Or is such a manipulation considered as a measurement (because I know which angle it has afterwards) ?
-- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla "(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
There has been quite a lot of noise about transmitting information faster than at light speed (with twin photons, tunnelling or whatever means). All (serious ?) scientists say that this is not possible, no matter if experiments show something else (or are these all faulty ?).
Some background: You can use a crystal to create a twin of a photon which will always have the same properties (for example spin or plarisation) as the original photon no matter the distance between them (quantum theory predicts this effect and it has been proven that it exists. The photon teleportation uses it, for example). Now the idea is like this: You create these twins in Paris and send them via fiber to New York and Moskau. In Moskau, I use a filter to polarise my photon and in New York, the polarisation is measured. This doesn't work but why not ?
Also, why do physicians claim that faster than light information transport by tunneling does not transport the information faster than light ? If an electron tunnels, it will appear on the other side in a shorter amount of time than when it had passed the distance at light speed. While we cannot force the electron to tunnel (we can just increase the probability that it eventually happens) the electron still did travel faster than light, right ? And it did not travel back in time because it appeared on the other side after it disappeared. And also its mass did not change (as Einsteins formula would predict). So what is wrong with the model that the electron travels faster than light ? Or better: Even if the model is completely wrong and we cannot understand or explain the effect, isn't there a technical use for it (for example a memory in which the data is stored in a quantum point and released by a tunnel effect ensuring save data storage plus FTL access) ?
Any pointers to more information about these topics would also be most welcome:-)
Thanks a lot,
-- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla "(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
Ever wondered why 50% of all software projects use twice or more the time/money scheduled ? And why the other half is canceled prematurely ?
Well, this book gives some hints where to look and how to improve the situation. While it might not be the holy grail of software development, it surely gives a very good insight into what we (desperately) ignored in the past and how it can be improved. At least this time, some very practical advice instead of complicated methodologies which are so complicated to understand that it should make everyone think twice before trying to use them.
-- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla "(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
The Hunger Site is the first useful appliance of advertisement (They convert hits into food for suffering countries).
-- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla "(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
VA Linux offers free space for open source projects at The SourceForge. This should help a lot of open source projects to get better code, more developers, more recognoition and less hazzle. -- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla "(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
Slashdot Mirror
One thing which I usually find is that developers don't understand what managers are for.
:-)
Most developers think that a manager is just someone who has no clue but the power to bother you.
To put it simple: The developer knows and the manager decides.
It's the job of the developer to understand the situation and come up with several (at least two) possible solutions for a problem, state them in clear words, list the advantages and disadvantages and make sure the manager understands them.
Then, the manager will make a decision. An educated decision.
But often, people don't bother to tell their managers what's wrong and why it is wrong and then, they wonder when the manager makes a bad decision.
I have found that it's very simple to get along with management as long as you keep them posted and you know your facts. When they grill you and you can stand your ground (and you can only do this when you know what you're talking about), then they will start to trust you and your life will suddenly become very easy. Note that even saying "I don't know but I'll find out" is "knowing what you are talking about".
Managers are just people, too. They know that they don't know as much as you do about the problem. They feel uneasy about this. Make them understand and they will be your friends.
Try it. It might be an effort but it really helps to get what you want (a bigger machine, less distractions by managers who want to know what is going on, etc)
When I had to do FORTRAN, I hated to have to put one tab or eight spaces in front of every line (that's where you put labels in FORTRAN), so my first contact with languages which depend on a certain input format was a bad one.
... that you don't understand anymore. Oh, and the GUI is still a weak point (it uses Tk and that means that there are thousands of extensions which don't quite fit what you need so you have to write it yourself, again).
Then I found Python. I didn't like it in the beginning but I found that Python code is very easy to read because it enforces a certain format.
Of course, Python doesn't repeat the biggest mistake of Make: It doesn't bother if you use spaces or tabs as long as your tabsize is 8.
And the amount of screen space which can be saved if you don't need block parentheses anymore, is amazing...
I have written code in C, C++, Java, various shell dialects, Tcl/Tk and Python.
Python has a better OO system than any other language, it has a better syntax than anything else and it is easier to understand than any programming language I've seen so far.
It is a bit slow, though, and when you must have a grip on yourself or you can easily write very compact code that does amazing things
But I've yet to find a language which even comes close to the power Python gives me and to the speed one can write solid code in this language.
Something I once saw might be interesting. It was a few years before anyone thought about HTML and the basic idea was to create a "well defined" data stream from arbitrary data (something XML will do, for example). Then you could use various filters which work only on the data in the stream which they know and pass the rest on unmodified.
Then the next step is to identify the available data streams. You should probably allow to insert these filters in different places, for example in the data stream between keyboard/mouse and a GUI element, between GUI elements (for example, display additional data when some valid data has been entered in an element; think of the URL entry fields in web browsers that show the know matches).
Another stream will be the various data streams the application generates and reads (ie. the config files or everything the user enters in, for example, a word processor).
And lastly, you will probably want to define additional connection points for these pipes so you can remotely control the application (for example, you could create a new mega application by connecting several existing apps just like you would do in a shell).
Some things to look at: RMI and CORBA for remote connectivity, XML for the data exchange format, ARexx and Tcl for how to open an application for remote control on a higher level than RMI/CORBA.
What was the reason to create a programming language which is more complicated (and thus harder to learn and use) than its predecessor ? Scripting languages show that there is a strong urge for more simple things. In C++, you essentially must be a C++ compiler to understand what the code really does. IMHO, this is a move in the wrong direction. Why did you chose that direction ? Or was this no issue when the language was designed ?
--
Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla
"(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
In the early 1990s a very notorious Amiga "fan" did upset the Amiga community. He would hang around in popular Amiga IRC channels and NEWS groups. He was very knowledgeable about Amiga and he used his knowledge to disagree with anyone.
:-)
:-/): He/it did not babble. He could counter arguments. AFAIK, the author still has the code. He said that it was quite simple because the topic was very narrow and it was easy to generate the answers (it just had to select the right one). But I think that Danny also collected new arguments (ie. he learned new stuff). He got his first "basic" arguments by hanging around on IRC and NEWS and just listening. In the end, he acted completely autonomous (ie. he read by himself and answered automatically).
:-)
And he was a bot. Acording to my memory, his core was about 30k and he had 50k of "memory" (ie. information about Amiga deficiencies). In the end, everybody hated this "guy" and we were all very upset when we finally found out
The point is: The program was *really* good. Have a look at old Amiga NEWS postings (if you have them; deja.com hasn't
Anybody remembering more ?
This program will pass the touring test
--
Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla
"(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather
than by buying a faster machine."
Isn't there a way to set the polarisation to a certain angle without destroying the particle (if I would use a polarisation filter, I would just be able to tell if the photon had a certain polarisation (it came through) or not (it didn't came through)). With that, I could manipulate the photon in New York before it is measured in Moskau. Or is such a manipulation considered as a measurement (because I know which angle it has afterwards) ?
--
Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla
"(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
There has been quite a lot of noise about transmitting information faster than at light speed (with twin photons, tunnelling or whatever means). All (serious ?) scientists say that this is not possible, no matter if experiments show something else (or are these all faulty ?).
:-)
Some background: You can use a crystal to create a twin of a photon which will always have the same properties (for example spin or plarisation) as the original photon no matter the distance between them (quantum theory predicts this effect and it has been proven that it exists. The photon teleportation uses it, for example). Now the idea is like this: You create these twins in Paris and send them via fiber to New York and Moskau. In Moskau, I use a filter to polarise my photon and in New York, the polarisation is measured. This doesn't work but why not ?
Also, why do physicians claim that faster than light information transport by tunneling does not transport the information faster than light ? If an electron tunnels, it will appear on the other side in a shorter amount of time than when it had passed the distance at light speed. While we cannot force the electron to tunnel (we can just increase the probability that it eventually happens) the electron still did travel faster than light, right ? And it did not travel back in time because it appeared on the other side after it disappeared. And also its mass did not change (as Einsteins formula would predict). So what is wrong with the model that the electron travels faster than light ? Or better: Even if the model is completely wrong and we cannot understand or explain the effect, isn't there a technical use for it (for example a memory in which the data is stored in a quantum point and released by a tunnel effect ensuring save data storage plus FTL access) ?
Any pointers to more information about these topics would also be most welcome
Thanks a lot,
--
Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla
"(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
Well, this book gives some hints where to look and how to improve the situation. While it might not be the holy grail of software development, it surely gives a very good insight into what we (desperately) ignored in the past and how it can be improved. At least this time, some very practical advice instead of complicated methodologies which are so complicated to understand that it should make everyone think twice before trying to use them.
--
Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla
"(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
--
Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla
"(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."
VA Linux offers free space for open source projects at The SourceForge. This should help a lot of open source projects to get better code, more developers, more recognoition and less hazzle. -- Dipl. Inf. (FH) Aaron "Optimizer" Digulla "(to) optimize: Make a program faster by improving the algorithms rather than by buying a faster machine."