The Pascal User Manual and Report. For some reason, I've got three of these [so I must REALLY like it] and now that I've seen the price on Amazon, I'm keeping them!
And I'm being serious too - maybe they don't have faster than light flight; maybe their lifespan is such that they don't need it - they've plenty of time, indeed, if you were immortal, wouldn't you?
I've known two. Both very bright, both different coders.
The first one used to teach programming - a variety of languages/tools - and so she was necessarily never *really* very good at any of them - however, she thought she was great at literally everything in life.
The second one used to be a professional [as in she had a job at it] C++ programmer. However, she never took the time to truly understand how things worked ["I just keep adding *s or &s until the warnings go away"], and, worse IMHO, she never got to grips with what libraries, profilers and other useful 'bit and bobs' were all about. Lastly, she also never got into the language, i.e., her code wouldn't port or compile on any other platform than she worked on, and she'd no interest in learning better methods than those that she already knew. I think she basically had no true interest in learning how to code well/better -- it was just a job.
Most of the guys I've programmed with were better than either of these. Ok, so some didn't like being shown 'a better way' [ego probably], but most were fine with learning new things.
I'm also not sure I'd like to see *too much* by way of 'why' something was done in the comments [too much clutter] - short sharp relevant comments are good, but in the end, it's the code that's right and up-to-date.
I studied both - albeit the former [CS] a long time ago - and at a time when Software Engineering [SE] wasn't even on the radar.
Ok, so SE isn't quite what you mentioned - but *it is* - in that it's 'practical', vs. 'theoretical'.
Currently I teach at one of the UK's top-three universities - I 'lecture' to a mix of people with varied backgrounds who want to learn to program... and I would say that,
Although we need CS students; SE students will probably enjoy their subject [and life thereafter {from what I've seen}] rather more than the CS students. SE is about how to build real systems, whereas CS is all about the study of those systems, at a low-level.
IMHO: if you're into O(n) and/or maths, rather than delivering something [to time/budget/...], then CS is the way to go [esp. if you'd like to teach the same later in life]. But, if you're into building things, without necessarily understanding the deep principles of how they work [think electrician vs. quantum physicist], then SE is what you should study.
As a 'last word' it all depends upon what you'd like to end up doing [although that might change of course]!
I'm sure it's been said here already - and that many people have already said that they consider Symantec's AV as deeply flawed product.
Still, just in case:
Symantec's AV is, IMHO, a terrible product. I have a parttime job working on a university heldesk in their central computing facility. We see this AV appear on user's machine regularly, and the first thing we do is get the user to uninstall it [if they can!], and to then install AVG Free Edition. I've never know a user to *not* come back and thanks us, and to report that their machine is running better after they've done this.
I think I'd go for the Feynman - Atomic Energy for Military Purposes. The Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb Under the Auspices of the United States Government.
Doc: The total potential here must be nothing less than astronomical.
Morbius: Nothing less. The number 10 raised almost literally to the power of infinity.
As well as the 'normal' -
The William Gibsons that follow-on or revolve around Neuromancer in some way, e.g.,
Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive, Johhny Mnemonic (or was that the film?), Burning Chrome.
Dan Brown - Digital Fortress
Alan Dean Foster - Dark Star
Peirs Anthony - Macroscope (I fell in love with Afra!)
Counterfiet World - Daniel Galouye
Contact - Carl Sagan
Tau Zero - Poul Anderson
Ring World - Larry Niven
The Lure - Bill Napier
As to formatting in a coding standard... this is usually a religious issue with developers, and in my experience, it's best to let them do what they feel they're most comfortable with. When *you* - as someone who does the same - want to look at *their* code, you run it through something like 'indent' (http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/indent.html) - i.e., so that you see it how you want it - and so do they. I'm sure it's even possible to shell apps like indent as source is checked out of your repository.
You should also read some books - for example, if you're writing in C or C++ read stuff like 'Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets' (although it's a bit old, it's still a pretty good read!) - then you'll perhaps mandate that fgets() is always used in preference to gets() etc. You'll also probably build an input file to grep or sed etc - so that you can scan source code for things like gets() - it's easy to forget to use fgets etc - esp. when such functions require extra args - that in turn, require extra time consuming keystrokes;-)
Some folks will also say 'only use standard functions' (I'm talking mainly about C here again of course). Anyway, IMHO, that's 'potentially pants'... IF - you have the source code for the non-standard functions/libraries AND IF they can be compiled by an ISO compiler AND IF they don't do anything platform specific (i.e., stuff that won't/can't port) - well, I say, if they agree with all these IF and BUTS, use them. If portability isn't an issue, well, you just use them - what's the point of not?!
Lastly, you might also want a lint-ing strategy, e.g., come up with 'stuff' that's to be corrected if it appears in lint's (flint,...) output - so, no one can check-in their code if it fails the lint check.
>>never using an int for any value other than 0-127
Does this mean that you're writing programs that *only* use 0-127 then?
I seem to remember something in the standards that said a char might be as big as an int, and that a long int might be as big as an 'ordinary' int too. So, to be strictly portable, you should only rely on there being 8 bits in a long - I also seem to remember that a char has at least 8 bits in the standard?
If anyone's interested, Richard Feynman's lectures on Einstein's special, and general relativity - for me - made its effects v.clear, and understandable [um, I think!].
However, why it's all *just so*, neither Feynman, Einstein or Newton [or anyone?] [really] knows [no 'mechanism' is given: which was enough the Newton] - Maybe that's how it should really be???
However, one thing that Feynman said that did puzzle me... he said something like "why things tend to move in a straight line... until a force acts... well, no one knows" - but's that's the same as saying - 'given that motion is relative... 'why things tend to stand still [instead of jiggling around], no onew knows!' Ok, it's common-sense *and* experience that things don't go and move about unless *forces act*, but what the heck!!!
Maybe the lack of understanding is just one manifestation of how a mind that's been subjected to 'common sense' doesn't question things. We're all *corrupt* in many ways!!
As a computational linguist, I was wondering whether what has been turned over [so far] is available, e.g., the Enron email corpus has thus far been very useful.
I'm not sure how this legally works, but does evidence like email automatically become 'public domain' in such cases?
Slashdot Mirror
The Pascal User Manual and Report. For some reason, I've got three of these [so I must REALLY like it] and now that I've seen the price on Amazon, I'm keeping them!
Imagine what a creation he might make in conjunction with Realdoll
You're unlucky - D-FENS was right behind you!
Maybe they just think 'thinking meat' should be left alone? http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html
And I'm being serious too - maybe they don't have faster than light flight; maybe their lifespan is such that they don't need it - they've plenty of time, indeed, if you were immortal, wouldn't you?
And 'Like' to all of the beginnings too.
My 11 year old son has *just* started asking me if he could start reading my scifi books - I started him with Dark Star [Alan Dean Foster].
I've known two. Both very bright, both different coders.
The first one used to teach programming - a variety of languages/tools - and so she was necessarily never *really* very good at any of them - however, she thought she was great at literally everything in life.
The second one used to be a professional [as in she had a job at it] C++ programmer. However, she never took the time to truly understand how things worked ["I just keep adding *s or &s until the warnings go away"], and, worse IMHO, she never got to grips with what libraries, profilers and other useful 'bit and bobs' were all about. Lastly, she also never got into the language, i.e., her code wouldn't port or compile on any other platform than she worked on, and she'd no interest in learning better methods than those that she already knew. I think she basically had no true interest in learning how to code well/better -- it was just a job.
Most of the guys I've programmed with were better than either of these. Ok, so some didn't like being shown 'a better way' [ego probably], but most were fine with learning new things.
I'm also not sure I'd like to see *too much* by way of 'why' something was done in the comments [too much clutter] - short sharp relevant comments are good, but in the end, it's the code that's right and up-to-date.
The trouble is that even if the Lords sends it back, the Commons can use the Parliament Act to pass the act and ignore the Lords.
What I'd like is Folders - not pretty/ugly colored tags!
I studied both - albeit the former [CS] a long time ago - and at a time when Software Engineering [SE] wasn't even on the radar.
... and I would say that,
Ok, so SE isn't quite what you mentioned - but *it is* - in that it's 'practical', vs. 'theoretical'.
Currently I teach at one of the UK's top-three universities - I 'lecture' to a mix of people with varied backgrounds who want to learn to program
Although we need CS students; SE students will probably enjoy their subject [and life thereafter {from what I've seen}] rather more than the CS students. SE is about how to build real systems, whereas CS is all about the study of those systems, at a low-level. IMHO: if you're into O(n) and/or maths, rather than delivering something [to time/budget/...], then CS is the way to go [esp. if you'd like to teach the same later in life]. But, if you're into building things, without necessarily understanding the deep principles of how they work [think electrician vs. quantum physicist], then SE is what you should study.
As a 'last word' it all depends upon what you'd like to end up doing [although that might change of course]!
Funny, I recently noticed some stuff in an old book I wrote:
http://www.wolfson.ox.ac.uk/~peet/patent/
Pity patents can't be retrospective!
I'm sure it's been said here already - and that many people have already said that they consider Symantec's AV as deeply flawed product.
Still, just in case:
Symantec's AV is, IMHO, a terrible product. I have a parttime job working on a university heldesk in their central computing facility. We see this AV appear on user's machine regularly, and the first thing we do is get the user to uninstall it [if they can!], and to then install AVG Free Edition. I've never know a user to *not* come back and thanks us, and to report that their machine is running better after they've done this.
I think I'd go for the Feynman - Atomic Energy for Military Purposes. The Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb Under the Auspices of the United States Government.
Wordpad, notepad, ... vi!
Doc: The total potential here must be nothing less than astronomical.
Morbius: Nothing less. The number 10 raised almost literally to the power of infinity.
Because the dumb ass user wandering around PC World see their stuff on the shelves ... no *proper techie* buys this stuff surely!
As well as the 'normal' - The William Gibsons that follow-on or revolve around Neuromancer in some way, e.g., Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive, Johhny Mnemonic (or was that the film?), Burning Chrome. Dan Brown - Digital Fortress Alan Dean Foster - Dark Star Peirs Anthony - Macroscope (I fell in love with Afra!) Counterfiet World - Daniel Galouye Contact - Carl Sagan Tau Zero - Poul Anderson Ring World - Larry Niven The Lure - Bill Napier
Why?
As to formatting in a coding standard ... this is usually a religious issue with developers, and in my experience, it's best to let them do what they feel they're most comfortable with. When *you* - as someone who does the same - want to look at *their* code, you run it through something like 'indent' (http://www.gnu.org/software/indent/indent.html) - i.e., so that you see it how you want it - and so do they. I'm sure it's even possible to shell apps like indent as source is checked out of your repository.
;-)
... IF - you have the source code for the non-standard functions/libraries AND IF they can be compiled by an ISO compiler AND IF they don't do anything platform specific (i.e., stuff that won't/can't port) - well, I say, if they agree with all these IF and BUTS, use them. If portability isn't an issue, well, you just use them - what's the point of not?!
...) output - so, no one can check-in their code if it fails the lint check.
You should also read some books - for example, if you're writing in C or C++ read stuff like 'Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets' (although it's a bit old, it's still a pretty good read!) - then you'll perhaps mandate that fgets() is always used in preference to gets() etc. You'll also probably build an input file to grep or sed etc - so that you can scan source code for things like gets() - it's easy to forget to use fgets etc - esp. when such functions require extra args - that in turn, require extra time consuming keystrokes
Some folks will also say 'only use standard functions' (I'm talking mainly about C here again of course). Anyway, IMHO, that's 'potentially pants'
Lastly, you might also want a lint-ing strategy, e.g., come up with 'stuff' that's to be corrected if it appears in lint's (flint,
>>never using an int for any value other than 0-127
Does this mean that you're writing programs that *only* use 0-127 then?
I seem to remember something in the standards that said a char might be as big as an int, and that a long int might be as big as an 'ordinary' int too. So, to be strictly portable, you should only rely on there being 8 bits in a long - I also seem to remember that a char has at least 8 bits in the standard?
If anyone's interested, Richard Feynman's lectures on Einstein's special, and general relativity - for me - made its effects v.clear, and understandable [um, I think!].
... he said something like "why things tend to move in a straight line ... until a force acts ... well, no one knows" - but's that's the same as saying - 'given that motion is relative ... 'why things tend to stand still [instead of jiggling around], no onew knows!' Ok, it's common-sense *and* experience that things don't go and move about unless *forces act*, but what the heck!!!
Maybe the lack of understanding is just one manifestation of how a mind that's been subjected to 'common sense' doesn't question things. We're all *corrupt* in many ways!!
However, why it's all *just so*, neither Feynman, Einstein or Newton [or anyone?] [really] knows [no 'mechanism' is given: which was enough the Newton] - Maybe that's how it should really be???
However, one thing that Feynman said that did puzzle me
Combine her with a Real Doll!
Could turn out to be a sensational ThinkGeek item!
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=51.501224,-0.141
The quality isn't very good for two places I'm interested in (Oxford/Cheltenham) - although the latter does show the new GCHQ builing nicely!
As a computational linguist, I was wondering whether what has been turned over [so far] is available, e.g., the Enron email corpus has thus far been very useful.
I'm not sure how this legally works, but does evidence like email automatically become 'public domain' in such cases?