> I suppose you could add Access into that, but it's such worthless crap anyway, why bother?
He he showing my age now, but back in 1994, I was one of the developers of Guys & St Thomas Hospitals Clinical OutPatients System, COPS. The entire front end GUI was written in Microbloat Access 2.0.
We used an Oracle 7.2 backend, with really dodgy TCP stacks ontop of win3.11.
You kids have got it easy these days with your Java and your XML and your Britney Spears. I don't envy you that m&m's bloke tho.
>word, excel, and powerpoint are all based on object models, and every iteration adds new
>functionality - either a new object that defines a new type of text break, or a function that allows copying
>from an ADO or DAO recordset into your current application.
Seriously though, I thought we'd solved all this embedded code/meanings drivel and thrown it away with the old Edifact formats and stuff where we had fixed length proprietary formats for each and every piece of data we want.
Want to modify the file a little bit? Maybe add in multi-currency support?Throw away all your old files, they won't work anymore.
Better than open formats can hope to be? I gotta question that.
Does this mean we can expect the non-pro-lifers to spout:
Think of the in-animate matter, think of the in-animate matter - don't you see what we're doing there.
It would be really nice to have this functionality over the network.
I mean, have an always on virtual cable piping the sound to my other box, where I can use an app and click on 'start archiving to file' and BAM it all goes into a file on my drive.
Kinda like the UNIX shell tee.
That would rock. That would stop me taking up loads of disk space on streaming audio feeds to record the one hour a day when the music is really rocking.
Its really interesting you mention that - I'd completely forgotten about that. Since you put it in that light, it looks a whole lot more like the M$ we all know and love too.... Poor SGI. I can't help feeling sorry for them - I've always had a special place in my heart for their hardware/software
>"Pure" OpenGL2 is a terrible mistake. Give vendors the option NOT to support something, and they won't.
I believe that the 'optional' part will be from the programs point of view - that means someone can't produce a pure-opengl 2.0 compliant library that isn't providing the backwards compatibility (without them failing the GL compliance tests that is).
If you want to use pure OpenGL2.0, you can, but your legacy apps will still run just fine.
Also of interest is the meeting minutes where the opengl panel discuss the implications of this leap, and raise some interesting questions:
> Bimal: Devil's Advocacy question: why do we want OpenGL to survive? If IHVs can't articulate this and drive progress, it won't survive.
I'd be really sad to see OpenGL go. Its the only way I've been able to fart around with all that graphic lovelness since University, doing my bit with deformable objects.
I hope they get their finger out and pull it off. Apple should be helping to sponsor this sort of thing really IMHO...
It sure did. Not only that, but this alpha functionality was a hard-core part of the original Deluxe Paint in 1986. (man, that program rocked!).
I remember getting really tripped on acid, and using the colour cycling in the program (F8 I think it was...). I'd draw a colour cycled blob on the screen, grab it as a brush. Turn colour cycling on, and then paint all over the screen with it. I swear that my screen melted that evening.
> If you are a high-level code "Architect" who thinks that implementing involves solving the
> same old simple subproblems, then you havent been reusing code very well. Check your
> abstraction level and start over.
I do think implementing involves solving the same old simple subproblems over and over again.
Why do you think we have patterns? Software tends to follow a set of rules, where the problems are often similar to ones you have tackled before, albeit with a slightly different set of initial tools and/or conditions. e.g. Resource pooling, factories, data warehouses... I could go on....
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'you haven't been reusing code very well'.
I don't really have an opinion about whether software engineering is like bridge building. I do believe it is about Engineering.
Lets tackle one of your comments:
> "software engineering" (I hate that name, its programming gadammit)
Programming should be what you do at home, in your own time, for fun. You want to work for a company, and create products, you better be software engineering (a part of which is programming), or someone will sack your ass real soon. Lets have a wee look at the definition of engineering:
engineering
n 1: the practical application of science to commerce or industry
2: the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems; "he had trouble deciding which branch of engineering to study"
Now flame me if I'm wrong, but aren't we dealing with the science (computer) of applying scientific knowledge (computer) to practical problems (customer needs) when we solve requirements?
Compare and contrast with programming:
programming
n 1: setting an order and time for planned events
2: creating a sequence of instructions to enable the computer to do something
You see, when we write a program, we are programming, buts thats just a part of Software Engineering.
Its true that requirements change in software. The big difference is the perceived time to market of the differing products.
How long till a bridge is ready for market?
How long till a program is ready for business? (At least the first iteration).
How much does it cost to change halfway through construction of a bridge?
How much does it cost to change a program half way through?
This difference in the time to market comes about from competition. Got to get there first, or someone else will write something crappy, and steal the market. You get a bridge right first time (hopefully), yet Microsoft is on Windows NT 5.1
Man, abuse that. Take two people up and some super soakers. With the increased pressure in the cannisters, and very little wind resistance, those babies should go for miles.
Wait, why not take up a couple of colt revolvers and some afghans. Did I type that out loud?
>Even companies such as McDonald's, Johnson & Johnson and Ford are keenly
>watching developments on the new networks. The fast food chain has already shown interest in
>the tele-immersion experiments being run on Internet2.
>The company envisioned fitting tele-immersion cubicles in its restaurants so people away from
>home - even in separate countries - could have dinner with their family
<vocoded voice>please can I have the crappy easy to choke on wind up toy, mommy, please>
Re:IDE - Editor or round trip engineering tool?
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 1
I'm based in Brussels at the moment. Contract market here is a bit crap (Been hunting for about 1 1/2 months now...). London in particular is dead, but mainland Europe isn't too bad.
The permanent market seems to still be quite fluid though, if thats what you fancy.
Seems to be quite a bit of J2EE work about - check out jobserve advanced search to see exactly how fluid.
Best of luck,
Mr Thinly Sliced
Re:IDE - Editor or round trip engineering tool?
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 1
You are going to have to go and revisit together - in it, you can turn off all the detail you want when you generate your diagrams. Don't want all the private methods? Turn em off. Don't want any methods? Turn em off. This goes for all the diagram types too, not just the class diagrams. You can only include things you find interesting.
I'll take this sort of in-step with source code over your hand drawn UML diagrams any day.
Try it out, you'll be suprised how fantastic it is.
Re:IDE - Editor or round trip engineering tool?
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 1
>Using an automatic tool to generate/maintain UML is a bad idea.
>UML should represent stuff in your head, stuff that you consider important.
Sorry mate, (I think you meant using a UML tool in design - if not please ignore) - but I think thats hogwash. Whats the bad idea about using a different canvas and paintbrush?
By generating UML a developer can quickly and efficiently offload a whole heap of information in a way other developers can pick up quickly even if the original designer isn't about.
This rapidly becomes important when you have multiple developers/coders/marketing/sales influencing the design of your components in a large organisation. I know I'm beating a banana with a lollipop stick here, as most coders really only want to code, and using UML is too much like hard work.
Mr Thinly Sliced
Dodgy english Eurovision song contest domain
on
.biz Open For Biz
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
fucks.biz
Re:IDE - Editor or round trip engineering tool?
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 1
O man, I know how that feels.We've all done it right?.
What size shop you work in? Chances are that if the project has sudenly become a nightmarishly large one, you need to get some proper software process in place chief.
> Most importantly, what I really STRONGLY don't recommend is forcing everyone in the
> company to use the same IDE.
It's interesting to note how many dev shops force their developers to use a particular operating system too - this is gradually changing but what I really want to do is develop in the way I am most productive and making me use windows + JBuilder cos everyone there does is pants at best, unproductive and expensive at worst. It's got to the stage now that I take my laptop with me. (Linux/emacs watch me alt-meta-shift-cokebottle those naughty windows boys)
Re:So the Linux kernel is not engineering ...
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
> Linus "just hacked" Linux. He didn't use UML.
Linus isn't going to dissapear from the project in 3 months cos he got offered a higher salary somewhere else. People come and go in business. You need a robust mechanism for documenting systems.
The open source model is great, as developers will spend a lot of time and energy at no cost getting up to speed on code.Business can't afford that.
Re:IDE - Editor or round trip engineering tool?
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 1
Just writing the code, and then reverse engineering it is fine for a one-shot app, but is really pants if your developing some of thos Enterprise Level Products where you have possibly many clients of your component.
Using UML to do the design before hand removes a large amount of the hit and miss when you just knock something up. How do your clients know what API you are presenting them? How are they sure that you provide all the functionality they require? (Sequence diagrams are excellent ways to ensure no functionality is missed).
Re:IDE - Editor or round trip engineering tool?
on
Java IDEs?
·
· Score: 1
Hey burner - I agree that not all developers need to produce UML - but any developer worth their salt on my team knows thats the preferred medium.
When developers come forward with suggestions for architecture/component designs, the quickest way to circulate this in a large organisation to all the parties that have an interest in the technology is UML - not some knocked up piece of code.
We use the catalysis approach - component based development. This is largely design/code by contract - and before you get into implementation, UML is an essential way of creating the initial contract between your developers and the clients of said code.
Anyone working on my team needs to get with the program - software engineering is not hacking, its engineering, which means forethought, planning, and good design. You can do all the nasty coding afterwards.
Slashdot Mirror
Man that was all going along so well right up to the 'or are you going to mope in a corner.'.
I pissed myself.
> I suppose you could add Access into that, but it's such worthless crap anyway, why bother?
He he showing my age now, but back in 1994, I was one of the developers of Guys & St Thomas Hospitals Clinical OutPatients System, COPS. The entire front end GUI was written in Microbloat Access 2.0.
We used an Oracle 7.2 backend, with really dodgy TCP stacks ontop of win3.11.
You kids have got it easy these days with your Java and your XML and your Britney Spears. I don't envy you that m&m's bloke tho.
>word, excel, and powerpoint are all based on object models, and every iteration adds new
>functionality - either a new object that defines a new type of text break, or a function that allows copying
>from an ADO or DAO recordset into your current application.
Man, what ever happened to separating content from presentation.
Seriously though, I thought we'd solved all this embedded code/meanings drivel and thrown it away with the old Edifact formats and stuff where we had fixed length proprietary formats for each and every piece of data we want.
Want to modify the file a little bit? Maybe add in multi-currency support? Throw away all your old files, they won't work anymore.
Better than open formats can hope to be? I gotta question that.
Does this mean we can expect the non-pro-lifers to spout:
Think of the in-animate matter, think of the in-animate matter - don't you see what we're doing there.
It would be really nice to have this functionality over the network.
I mean, have an always on virtual cable piping the sound to my other box, where I can use an app and click on 'start archiving to file' and BAM it all goes into a file on my drive.
Kinda like the UNIX shell tee.
That would rock. That would stop me taking up loads of disk space on streaming audio feeds to record the one hour a day when the music is really rocking.
Thats why openbsd.org doesn't run on openbsd.
Its really interesting you mention that - I'd completely forgotten about that. Since you put it in that light, it looks a whole lot more like the M$ we all know and love too.... Poor SGI. I can't help feeling sorry for them - I've always had a special place in my heart for their hardware/software
>"Pure" OpenGL2 is a terrible mistake. Give vendors the option NOT to support something, and they won't.
I believe that the 'optional' part will be from the programs point of view - that means someone can't produce a pure-opengl 2.0 compliant library that isn't providing the backwards compatibility (without them failing the GL compliance tests that is).
If you want to use pure OpenGL2.0, you can, but your legacy apps will still run just fine.
Also of interest is the meeting minutes where the opengl panel discuss the implications of this leap, and raise some interesting questions:
> Bimal: Devil's Advocacy question: why do we want OpenGL to survive? If IHVs can't articulate this and drive progress, it won't survive.
I'd be really sad to see OpenGL go. Its the only way I've been able to fart around with all that graphic lovelness since University, doing my bit with deformable objects.
I hope they get their finger out and pull it off. Apple should be helping to sponsor this sort of thing really IMHO...
It sure did. Not only that, but this alpha functionality was a hard-core part of the original Deluxe Paint in 1986. (man, that program rocked!).
I remember getting really tripped on acid, and using the colour cycling in the program (F8 I think it was...). I'd draw a colour cycled blob on the screen, grab it as a brush. Turn colour cycling on, and then paint all over the screen with it. I swear that my screen melted that evening.
> If you are a high-level code "Architect" who thinks that implementing involves solving the
> same old simple subproblems, then you havent been reusing code very well. Check your
> abstraction level and start over.
I do think implementing involves solving the same old simple subproblems over and over again.
Why do you think we have patterns? Software tends to follow a set of rules, where the problems are often similar to ones you have tackled before, albeit with a slightly different set of initial tools and/or conditions. e.g. Resource pooling, factories, data warehouses... I could go on....
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'you haven't been reusing code very well'.
I don't really have an opinion about whether software engineering is like bridge building. I do believe it is about Engineering.
Lets tackle one of your comments:
> "software engineering" (I hate that name, its programming gadammit)
Programming should be what you do at home, in your own time, for fun. You want to work for a company, and create products, you better be software engineering (a part of which is programming), or someone will sack your ass real soon. Lets have a wee look at the definition of engineering:
engineering
n 1: the practical application of science to commerce or industry
2: the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems; "he had trouble deciding which branch of engineering to study"
Now flame me if I'm wrong, but aren't we dealing with the science (computer) of applying scientific knowledge (computer) to practical problems (customer needs) when we solve requirements?
Compare and contrast with programming:
programming
n 1: setting an order and time for planned events
2: creating a sequence of instructions to enable the computer to do something
You see, when we write a program, we are programming, buts thats just a part of Software Engineering .
- How long till a bridge is ready for market?
- How long till a program is ready for business? (At least the first iteration).
- How much does it cost to change halfway through construction of a bridge?
- How much does it cost to change a program half way through?
This difference in the time to market comes about from competition. Got to get there first, or someone else will write something crappy, and steal the market. You get a bridge right first time (hopefully), yet Microsoft is on Windows NT 5.1>Actually, many of us are thinking real coders use EMACS
And real programmers don't eat quiche. They smear it over their nubile young bodies because the heatings broken again in finsbury square.
Don't they.
Man, abuse that. Take two people up and some super soakers. With the increased pressure in the cannisters, and very little wind resistance, those babies should go for miles.
Wait, why not take up a couple of colt revolvers and some afghans. Did I type that out loud?
>Even companies such as McDonald's, Johnson & Johnson and Ford are keenly
>watching developments on the new networks. The fast food chain has already shown interest in
>the tele-immersion experiments being run on Internet2.
>The company envisioned fitting tele-immersion cubicles in its restaurants so people away from
>home - even in separate countries - could have dinner with their family
<vocoded voice>please can I have the crappy easy to choke on wind up toy, mommy, please>
I'm based in Brussels at the moment. Contract market here is a bit crap (Been hunting for about 1 1/2 months now...). London in particular is dead, but mainland Europe isn't too bad.
The permanent market seems to still be quite fluid though, if thats what you fancy.
Seems to be quite a bit of J2EE work about - check out jobserve advanced search to see exactly how fluid.
Best of luck,
Mr Thinly Sliced
You are going to have to go and revisit together - in it, you can turn off all the detail you want when you generate your diagrams. Don't want all the private methods? Turn em off. Don't want any methods? Turn em off. This goes for all the diagram types too, not just the class diagrams. You can only include things you find interesting.
I'll take this sort of in-step with source code over your hand drawn UML diagrams any day.
Try it out, you'll be suprised how fantastic it is.
>Using an automatic tool to generate/maintain UML is a bad idea.
>UML should represent stuff in your head, stuff that you consider important.
Sorry mate, (I think you meant using a UML tool in design - if not please ignore) - but I think thats hogwash. Whats the bad idea about using a different canvas and paintbrush?
By generating UML a developer can quickly and efficiently offload a whole heap of information in a way other developers can pick up quickly even if the original designer isn't about.
This rapidly becomes important when you have multiple developers/coders/marketing/sales influencing the design of your components in a large organisation. I know I'm beating a banana with a lollipop stick here, as most coders really only want to code, and using UML is too much like hard work.
Mr Thinly Slicedfucks.biz
O man, I know how that feels.We've all done it right?.
What size shop you work in? Chances are that if the project has sudenly become a nightmarishly large one, you need to get some proper software process in place chief.
> company to use the same IDE.
It's interesting to note how many dev shops force their developers to use a particular operating system too - this is gradually changing but what I really want to do is develop in the way I am most productive and making me use windows + JBuilder cos everyone there does is pants at best, unproductive and expensive at worst. It's got to the stage now that I take my laptop with me. (Linux/emacs watch me alt-meta-shift-cokebottle those naughty windows boys)
Linus isn't going to dissapear from the project in 3 months cos he got offered a higher salary somewhere else. People come and go in business. You need a robust mechanism for documenting systems.
The open source model is great, as developers will spend a lot of time and energy at no cost getting up to speed on code.Business can't afford that.
Just writing the code, and then reverse engineering it is fine for a one-shot app, but is really pants if your developing some of thos Enterprise Level Products where you have possibly many clients of your component.
Using UML to do the design before hand removes a large amount of the hit and miss when you just knock something up. How do your clients know what API you are presenting them? How are they sure that you provide all the functionality they require? (Sequence diagrams are excellent ways to ensure no functionality is missed).
Hey burner - I agree that not all developers need to produce UML - but any developer worth their salt on my team knows thats the preferred medium.
When developers come forward with suggestions for architecture/component designs, the quickest way to circulate this in a large organisation to all the parties that have an interest in the technology is UML - not some knocked up piece of code.
We use the catalysis approach - component based development. This is largely design/code by contract - and before you get into implementation, UML is an essential way of creating the initial contract between your developers and the clients of said code.
Anyone working on my team needs to get with the program - software engineering is not hacking, its engineering, which means forethought, planning, and good design. You can do all the nasty coding afterwards.
Mr Thinly Sliced