Yes. Every project I have worked on has had design standards, coding standards, and peer reviews. Yes there were tight crunches on time at many moments, and the quality of code does suffer at those points, but overall the code lives up to the standards and is better for it. It is easier to maintain, debug, update, refactor etc. because it is well designed and implemented. I very well could be an anomaly but I have to believe that in order to ensure that a system requirements were meant (in the form of Ilities) you need to have broad control over the code (how design decisions are developed, and enforced).
Thats nice if you are an artist, but most people's code is paid for by XYZ company. Many of these companies have coding standards, most languages used have coding standards, and there are so many proven and accepted design patterns. This is to say that personal flair to coding style is fine, but if you are avoiding conventions, defying standard design patterns, and doing whatever the heck you want, then that is unacceptable.
I know its stated that design patterns should be followed in the parent's post, but that coupled with standard conventions should keep other people's code form 'sucking' because you shouldn't have to think differently to understand it.
Um, how can you compare a C implementation of a function to a Ruby invocation. For all you know the Ruby implementation could be almost identical. The actual comparison from above would be "Reverse me".reverse against (possibly, I know nothing of what a bstring is) bReverse("Reverse me"). I agree C's string manipulation can be atrocious but at least compare apples to apples.
I don't think there is any specific order with respect to collateral damage. Though it may seem that the order implies (1 being least to 10 being highest) their perspective of the worst products.
When I first read this I thought it meant that scientists were more afraid of Nano technology than they were of people. Either really works, but people aren't THAT scary, well most of the time...
70/80s, no, but the 90s, yeah I probably would. The GP said he is 20, means he was born in '87 and he started with computers at 3, i.e. 90s. But I'm sure depending on parental involvement in PCs would strongly dictate which aspect of computers a growing lad would see.
This may be slightly offtopic, but I'm pretty sure computers had harddrives back in 1990 (2007 - 20 - 3). I am pretty close to your age as well, and I acutally had a TRS-80 with about 40mb of disk space i think, maybe smaller. But nonetheless, you may want to rethink broad statements of coming from a time before harddrives were in PCs.
I have a feeling that you are looking at programming in completely separate way from the GP. JVM managed garbage collection has proven useful as it can schedule memory management at appropriate times as opposed to freeing/allocating memory at every stack pop (depending on where it was allocated). I know how you feel, and I was completely anti-Java up until I had to use it for work, and there are some things that make me fight Java (Lack of operator overloading, and multiple inheritance), but they aren't core issues, and it is more an issue of style.
If you don't have an OOP related problem, don't do it, but apart from goto, you can do some pretty straight forward procedural programming in Java. It's not optimized for that, but its completely doable (I've seen some legacy code, its not pretty).
You can write your own libraries in C, and expose them to Java, nothing stopping you there. If you are afraid that it won't run at the same efficiency/performance on others machines, compile it using gjc and distribute it as an executable, and negate many of the performance issues. Use all the libraries you want, do it your way, but don't look at Java and say bad for standardizing. I know that I am able to write code that is bug free and works the way I expect it, on every JVM (for the most part), as opposed to getting 100 different versions of String. Standardization has some costs, and its normally with letting the little things go and focusing on the real problems like building software, and not optimizing my string concatenation code for a specific processor.
And Reflection. If you fear reflection as a viable means of programming, I fear you live in a different world than most. Many times reflection is abused by the lazy, but somethings are just not doable without reflection, or tedious hardcoding/code generation. Java's reflection has seen tremendous speed improvements in recent versions to the point where it is almost the same speed as native commands. I mean, even taking a second to think about certain design patterns, e.g. Aspect Oriented Programming, and its clear that certain things are much more elegant and understandable with reflection. I don't know how it is a design mistake, but you might as well say the same thing for recursions while your at it.
Another point is the fact that the JVM has the ability to dynamically optimize code execution and find pieces of code that are being run more than others, and perform more specific optimizations to increase speed of execution. Java is not as fast as C, but it is getting closer to C++ and the benefits of a standardized, feature-rich environment is amazing when working with complex systems.
I'm not saying your points are wrong in a given context, but for the bulk of software I've seen developed, it seems that Java can fit the bill quite nicely.
Can you imagine what IT would be like if Casio had created the PC? Why, it might actually work. I can, it would either be a wrist watch, or one of their incarnations of a PDA. I owned a Casio PDA, it ran Windows CE, and it worked pretty well, but obviously Casio changed their tune as they dove into more complex markets. I think the article is right in noting that to make something as complex as a "computer" is going to allow for a set of bugs to exist, or to spend inordinate amounts of money making sure the entire project is perfect. It's possible, look at the Space program, but its not cheap. You can't have cheap and perfect unless you want something so simple that your product is more than likely useless anyways. (Not to discredit calculators or wristwatches)
Exhaustive?
on
Cracking Go
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Using an exhaustive method is silly in a realm of 10^60 possibilities. Obviously human players, with much more finite resources (computationally that is) can do a much better job. Why not spend more time and being able to analyze the board better, and mimic the decision making patterns of the masters. I realize this has already been tried, and is still being worked on, but exhaustive search just seems like a waste of time and effort. My.02
How in the world is this redundant? I mean, it may not be really relevant to the article, I'll give you that, but redundant? People keep using this mod on Slashdot, but I don't think everyone has the same idea on what it means.
There was actually a CSI episode about this. I can't remember the episode, but after a blood transfusion (i think), the man has one set of DNA for his blood, and another for his tissue. This is how we upheld his alibi until a blood DNA test was taken.
I agree with what you are getting at, but most users, who participate in online forums, I wouldn't consider "Average Joe" user. I would say that on a non-tech forum its closer to "Average Joe", but not the same.
The "Office Live" site may state that, but I was referencing the article. If the article is flawed, fine, but according to the article, I stand by what I wrote. The article implies that you can edit documents online.
I realize the article can be, and is probably wrong, but I was referencing the article when writing my response.
Um, I'm not so sure, from the article:
There is one significant difference, however: unlike Google apps, Microsoft said users of its new service can only create or edit online documents if they have Office software already installed on their machines. I'm pretty sure I just read only create or edit online documents. Going with the article, I'd say your wrong.
Code Monkey hang around at front desk
tell you sweater look nice
Code Monkey offer buy you soda
bring you cup bring you ice
you say no thank you for the soda 'cause
soda make you fat
anyway you busy with the telephone
no time for chat
Code Monkey have long walk back to cubicle
he sit down pretend to work
Code Monkey not thinking so straight
Code Monkey not feeling so great
Code Monkey like Fritos
Code Monkey like Tab and Mountain Dew
Code Monkey very simple man
with big warm fuzzy secret heart
Code Monkey like you
Code Monkey like you a lot
That doesn't mean that there is no profit in giving back, I mean Google et. al have found the benefit of giving back to the community, and the increased profits and word of mouth advertisement, etc. I mean, if you just weighed the time, effort it takes to give your changes back to the community in cost of advertisement, I would **assume** that you would at least make even if not gain on the entire endeavor (and after the initial setup of giving back, each additional change is minimal to give back to the community and the continued reputation improvement and word of mouth advertisement would inevitable outweigh any costs of giving back to the community)
Not that I agree with the article by any means, but he was stating what made Google popular and successful, not what you did. You have to agree that the marketshare lies with Windows for Operating Systems and much of Google's revenue is from advertising, and advertisers go after the mass (normally).
I mean, your argument is along the lines of claiming telnet existed before Windows and that i could reach google that way, but where is the market share.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Every project I have worked on has had design standards, coding standards, and peer reviews. Yes there were tight crunches on time at many moments, and the quality of code does suffer at those points, but overall the code lives up to the standards and is better for it. It is easier to maintain, debug, update, refactor etc. because it is well designed and implemented. I very well could be an anomaly but I have to believe that in order to ensure that a system requirements were meant (in the form of Ilities) you need to have broad control over the code (how design decisions are developed, and enforced).
Thats nice if you are an artist, but most people's code is paid for by XYZ company. Many of these companies have coding standards, most languages used have coding standards, and there are so many proven and accepted design patterns. This is to say that personal flair to coding style is fine, but if you are avoiding conventions, defying standard design patterns, and doing whatever the heck you want, then that is unacceptable.
I know its stated that design patterns should be followed in the parent's post, but that coupled with standard conventions should keep other people's code form 'sucking' because you shouldn't have to think differently to understand it.
--my $.02
Um, how can you compare a C implementation of a function to a Ruby invocation. For all you know the Ruby implementation could be almost identical. The actual comparison from above would be "Reverse me".reverse against (possibly, I know nothing of what a bstring is) bReverse("Reverse me"). I agree C's string manipulation can be atrocious but at least compare apples to apples.
I don't think there is any specific order with respect to collateral damage. Though it may seem that the order implies (1 being least to 10 being highest) their perspective of the worst products.
When I first read this I thought it meant that scientists were more afraid of Nano technology than they were of people. Either really works, but people aren't THAT scary, well most of the time...
Thats when you are under the Mobile section of the site. I'm not sure if that's so sarcastic, but meh
... well, bar Snake that is.Is that the sleazy game where you go to bars and hit on women?....
70/80s, no, but the 90s, yeah I probably would. The GP said he is 20, means he was born in '87 and he started with computers at 3, i.e. 90s. But I'm sure depending on parental involvement in PCs would strongly dictate which aspect of computers a growing lad would see.
This may be slightly offtopic, but I'm pretty sure computers had harddrives back in 1990 (2007 - 20 - 3). I am pretty close to your age as well, and I acutally had a TRS-80 with about 40mb of disk space i think, maybe smaller. But nonetheless, you may want to rethink broad statements of coming from a time before harddrives were in PCs.
So what is wrong with AOP exactly, and what makes it unmaintainable?
I tried just now on the emulator.
Holy crap. I guess androids have to come from somewhere, but ewwww...
I have a feeling that you are looking at programming in completely separate way from the GP. JVM managed garbage collection has proven useful as it can schedule memory management at appropriate times as opposed to freeing/allocating memory at every stack pop (depending on where it was allocated). I know how you feel, and I was completely anti-Java up until I had to use it for work, and there are some things that make me fight Java (Lack of operator overloading, and multiple inheritance), but they aren't core issues, and it is more an issue of style.
If you don't have an OOP related problem, don't do it, but apart from goto, you can do some pretty straight forward procedural programming in Java. It's not optimized for that, but its completely doable (I've seen some legacy code, its not pretty).
You can write your own libraries in C, and expose them to Java, nothing stopping you there. If you are afraid that it won't run at the same efficiency/performance on others machines, compile it using gjc and distribute it as an executable, and negate many of the performance issues. Use all the libraries you want, do it your way, but don't look at Java and say bad for standardizing. I know that I am able to write code that is bug free and works the way I expect it, on every JVM (for the most part), as opposed to getting 100 different versions of String. Standardization has some costs, and its normally with letting the little things go and focusing on the real problems like building software, and not optimizing my string concatenation code for a specific processor.
And Reflection. If you fear reflection as a viable means of programming, I fear you live in a different world than most. Many times reflection is abused by the lazy, but somethings are just not doable without reflection, or tedious hardcoding/code generation. Java's reflection has seen tremendous speed improvements in recent versions to the point where it is almost the same speed as native commands. I mean, even taking a second to think about certain design patterns, e.g. Aspect Oriented Programming, and its clear that certain things are much more elegant and understandable with reflection. I don't know how it is a design mistake, but you might as well say the same thing for recursions while your at it.
Another point is the fact that the JVM has the ability to dynamically optimize code execution and find pieces of code that are being run more than others, and perform more specific optimizations to increase speed of execution. Java is not as fast as C, but it is getting closer to C++ and the benefits of a standardized, feature-rich environment is amazing when working with complex systems.
I'm not saying your points are wrong in a given context, but for the bulk of software I've seen developed, it seems that Java can fit the bill quite nicely.
Well that might be because people want to be able to edit the document later. Just a thought.
Using an exhaustive method is silly in a realm of 10^60 possibilities. Obviously human players, with much more finite resources (computationally that is) can do a much better job. Why not spend more time and being able to analyze the board better, and mimic the decision making patterns of the masters. I realize this has already been tried, and is still being worked on, but exhaustive search just seems like a waste of time and effort. My .02
How in the world is this redundant? I mean, it may not be really relevant to the article, I'll give you that, but redundant? People keep using this mod on Slashdot, but I don't think everyone has the same idea on what it means.
There was actually a CSI episode about this. I can't remember the episode, but after a blood transfusion (i think), the man has one set of DNA for his blood, and another for his tissue. This is how we upheld his alibi until a blood DNA test was taken.
Same goes for this guy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Me37RfGA8CE), he could really use the self-tuning guitar as the humidity keeps messing with him.
I agree with what you are getting at, but most users, who participate in online forums, I wouldn't consider "Average Joe" user. I would say that on a non-tech forum its closer to "Average Joe", but not the same.
The "Office Live" site may state that, but I was referencing the article. If the article is flawed, fine, but according to the article, I stand by what I wrote. The article implies that you can edit documents online. I realize the article can be, and is probably wrong, but I was referencing the article when writing my response.
tell you sweater look nice
Code Monkey offer buy you soda
bring you cup bring you ice
you say no thank you for the soda 'cause
soda make you fat
anyway you busy with the telephone
no time for chat
Code Monkey have long walk back to cubicle
he sit down pretend to work
Code Monkey not thinking so straight
Code Monkey not feeling so great
Code Monkey like Fritos
Code Monkey like Tab and Mountain Dew
Code Monkey very simple man
with big warm fuzzy secret heart
Code Monkey like you
Code Monkey like you a lot
That doesn't mean that there is no profit in giving back, I mean Google et. al have found the benefit of giving back to the community, and the increased profits and word of mouth advertisement, etc. I mean, if you just weighed the time, effort it takes to give your changes back to the community in cost of advertisement, I would **assume** that you would at least make even if not gain on the entire endeavor (and after the initial setup of giving back, each additional change is minimal to give back to the community and the continued reputation improvement and word of mouth advertisement would inevitable outweigh any costs of giving back to the community)
Not that I agree with the article by any means, but he was stating what made Google popular and successful, not what you did. You have to agree that the marketshare lies with Windows for Operating Systems and much of Google's revenue is from advertising, and advertisers go after the mass (normally).
I mean, your argument is along the lines of claiming telnet existed before Windows and that i could reach google that way, but where is the market share.