These things aren't inherently bad. But the government never quite stops where it should, and has managed to run at least the first two into the ground. Perhaps if the government would build the infrastructure and turn it over, slowly and carefully, to private industry, we would be in a lot better shape today in all areas.
No, to be fair, the South is producing some of the brightest minds and innovative solutions in the world. But it's ok, we'll let you Northerners and Westerners think that we all live in a 30-year old trailer and we do nothing but line-dancin', fishin', and cow-tippin'. Don't let the facts get in your way. Obviously, you do all the high-quality research into bioengineering, quantum physics, and new technologies that make the world so much better... we're just too stupid to understand that stuff.
I can definitely agree with the non-purist point of view. You can take everything to an extreme. When decoupling, you can pull so much out of your classes that they become anemic, and really you have something that no longer gains the benefits of OOP.
Among other things, it [IoC] tends to replace proper object-oriented design with service-centric one.
I disagree. I'm sure you could take it to that extreme, but I would say it tends to promote OO design. IoC relies on inheritance of interfaces and base classes. Without IoC, I've many times seen entire programs created without any inheritance at all (except maybe when the IDE does it for you, like in C#/WinForms when inheriting System.Windows.Forms.Form, which is provided by the Visual Studio designer).
So it's not replacing OO design, it's extending OO design. Be careful not to violate what you said in your next-to-last paragraph... OO is not the answer to everything.
What you've described is a problem with code duplication, not tight coupling.
No, it's a problem with coupling. I had practically everything in one class (a single form... again, bad practice). It was quite easy to write the first time around, but little did I know that 3 years later I would pay the price. Actually, I've paid the price pretty much every day of the past six years of maintenance. I waste time fixing problems that would have been obvious the first time around with a decoupled design.
Also, the problem would have been solved by unit tests (which do not require decoupling).
That's the thing... this code is not unit testable. Let me take that back. I probably could try, but every test would have database hits or web service hits and would take forever to run. Decoupling would remove those dependencies and provide testability that is tractable.
The problem is that we, as programmers, don't see the system as a whole - we see individual bricks
This is good. It's like having an atlas. We don't have to see every street in every city in the world. It has one map of the country (analagous to our IoC mappings), and more detailed maps of smaller areas like cities and states (individual classes)
and have to mentally reconstruct the whole thing
No, again IoC is the larger, less detailed map. That provides your reconstruction. IoC allows you to focus when you need to focus, and see the big picture when you need to do that.
Again, you have valid arguments when you take things to an extreme. That's where good design comes to play... and I would argue that "elegant" code is that which is designed with the best use of the principles and patterns that you know. Like you said, code gets ugly fast when you take a purist approach.
And don't be so afraid of things that provide more than one benefit simultaneously. Just because decoupling provides both maintainability and substitutability, and somewhat provides testability, doesn't mean it's bad. It just means that you need to be careful about the design, and to understand the difference in the benefits and when you take them to an extreme.
A good chunk of your post assumes that the ideas of interface-based decoupling, IoC, etc. are all unnatural. My guess is that those things are not your enemy, but that design is your problem.
It's probably true that most programmers decide, from day one of learning how to program, that tightly coupled code defers the difficult task of design until the very last possible minute. But that doesn't mean that decoupling is unnatural, and it is certainly not bad. It means that we need to teach programmers these principles from the start.
the cost of maintaining the loosely coupled code up to that point is actually much more than the price you'd have paid for refactoring it to suit your new needs if you left it simple (and more coupled) originally.
I don't see this at all. Maintainability is the point of loose coupling.
Case in point... I have been working on a data entry system for a few years now that, through previous design and my own old habits, has become very tightly coupled. Unit testing probably won't ever happen. I once needed to add a field in section 2. I did and released an update. A few days later, we noticed that data had been half-entered in hundreds of records. It took days to track down the issue... it turns out that I didn't find all the places that my field needed to be updated, and because of consistency errors, anytime a button was pressed in section 5, any future attempts to save the record were lost.
That situation probably never would have happened with loosely coupled code, because sections 2 and 5 would have had nothing to do with each other. All the places that a new field would need to be added would have been more obvious.
Be careful when making blanket statements about how complicated things are, when they are simply different. To me, the coupled code I have above is leaps-and-bounds more complicated than code that has a well thought-out design. Testability just happens to come for free.
(or IoC/DI with its maze of XML configs)
Why do you have a "maze" of IoC configs? It seems you're doing something wrong if that's a major issue.
Sometimes I need a phrase translated, and I know some of the words but not all. If I come across a translation that doesn't seem right at all, I'll get a second opinion by trying another engine, and usually by doing a reverse translation in both. And if I'm still skeptical, I'll just Google the translation and see if I can get the jist of the true meaning.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?
Objective-C is solid, only on its second release (2.0). It has a learning curve for most non-Apple devs. Based on Smalltalk, messages (methods) are bound at runtime. Garbage collection and properties were added in the latest version.
Java is very stable, but given the number of releases I would say less solid (it's on its seventh major release, with a beta for it's eighth). Based loosely on C++, but with garbage collection (no pointers), it is really the only system that produces true cross-platform binaries.
C# is on its third version (3), although the runtime is on its fifth (3.5). Most people agree that as a language, it is superior to Java due to support for events, functional/lambda-style programming, LINQ, generics (which are generally considered better than Java's), etc. C# is standardized, but open source/cross platform implementations (Mono) are behind those from Microsoft. Silverlight, however, is available cross-platform via Moonlight. The next version is in the works (C#/.NET 4.0).
I really don't get where you were saying "if you crash your data is gone". That doesn't even make sense, in the context of a computer programming language.
Windows 7 eats into Vista/XP market share. A 5.71% gain in Windows 7 is a 5.71% loss in Windows Vista/XP. Microsoft's market share has increased by 0% because of Windows 7.
Linux eats into Vista/XP market share. A 0.12% gain in Linux is a 0.12% loss in Windows Vista/XP. Microsoft's market share has been reduced by 0.12% because of Linux.
Microsoft has not gained any market share. So I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. They gain profits while losing customers?
The graph is kind of misleading, its not actually to scale
I think the point is to show that time prior to a point of interest shows one behavior, and the time after that shows another. If he had only shown 2-3 days prior, it would have looked basically the same.
Yes, he is misleading in the video, but having extra data is forgivable.
Basically I just wasted 15 minutes looking over worthless data on a random youtube video that doesn't actually say anything.
The validity of the data has nothing to do with the rest of your post. Is 15 days worth of data suddenly less worthwhile than 5?
That's my thought... but I still don't see how things like this get "crossed". Even if your IP address got switched with another during a request, at most I would expect you to wind up is receiving one page. When you load the next page, or make the next AJAX request, you wouldn't have the session cookie and it would kick you back to the login screen.
Unless of course Facebook sends the auth cookie in every response, or the "wires" got crossed just when the other person was making a login request.
Not really. Most companies freely brag about their unreleased products in order to gain hype. Apple has everybody else brag about their products to gain hype. That keeps them legit and makes it hard to accuse them of announcing vaporware.
I never said they were. I was merely highlighting the OP's point (what I got from it), which is that global warming is a nice conjecture, but really there's no evidence of it (more precisely, there's no evidence that people are the cause of it).
But let's assume we are the cause... I once looked it up, and 15 cargo ships produce as much greenhouse gas as all the cars in the world combined. There are 90,000 cargo ships in the world that operate all the time. Do the math. Now, ask yourself why politicians care nothing about regulating overseas shipping, but want desperately to milk an extra couple of miles out of your gas tank at a price of hundreds or thousands of dollars to you?
Groan. And time for... yet another idiot confusing weather and climate.
You are so right... they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other. In fact, I would bet that every snow storm means that the climate is actually getting much hotter... sort of an inverse relationship. Except for in the summer (of course)... that's just the beginning of a 50,000 year global heat wave caused by cars and incandescent light bulbs.
Every stinkin' year, it gets cold and snows in Russia... will global warming ever end?
If one failed project helps a business prevent similar failure in future projects, has the failed project not produced some value after all?
Not really. Let's say that one succeeded and the future projects still succeed. Obviously that is positive compared with the failure you described. Let's say that the one succeeded and a future project failed, which then led to the experience to succeed at the other future projects. The overall state would have been neutral, on average.
There's no use praying for failure just so you can gain experience at failing.
FYI, just because Jesus didn't address the nuances on how we came to be doesn't mean it's not more important than his message of forgiveness and love. Quite the opposite.
I doubt it. Jesus focused on grace and forgiveness... he meant *exactly* that those things were more important. He didn't say that origin was unimportant, but in the grand scheme of things, it's in the past and we can get all caught up in it (which is exactly why creationists need to figure out their priorities). We will never understand it as he understands it anyway.
Therefore he made lies and slander.
Just because God creates the ability to sin, and God creates the definition of the sin, does not mean that God condones the sin.
Luckily IBM never lowered themselves to such despicable practices.
This isn't about IBM. We're over them. Microsoft is still an overwhelming force in the industry.
They abused their monopoly by forcing OEMs to give them unfair advantages over competition. This isn't just an opinion... the only real competitor (Apple) has complete control over their hardware systems, and that's why they can compete.
I'm not following how it's difficult to sort. In fact, the YYYY-DDD format is completely natural, with the year followed by the number of days in the year.
The week numbering system may seem strange, but it still sorts correctly. You just have to remember that week one is the first week with 4 or more days in that year, not necessarily the week that contains Jan. 1.
The 39 days takes into account that fact. And remember, in 78 days Mars will have also completed 11% of its orbit, in the same direction.
Mars and Earth will be at their closest approach exactly halfway through the mission. If it were a single-pass mission, that would also be the time that the spacecraft was closest to Mars and farthest from Earth.
Apple has managed to expand the smartphone market to people who would not have paid that much for a phone a couple of years ago. During one of the worst recessions in American history.
Verizon might bring a better user experience than Apple has. But, given their track record, I doubt it. So like you alluded to, there is only a small market segment available for expensive devices that have awesome features but don't target the majority of users.
The GP may be exaggerating, but how about when I drive from Maine to the Grand Canyon and pretend it didn't happen? Or when I claim that my wife takes me to work every day (when I drive myself)?
And what if that isn't an exaggeration? I'm sure there are plenty of people with their 1960's muscle car in the garage, taking it out about twice a year to show off around the neighborhood.
The placebo affect can also be caused by pride. "I paid $300 for these pills, they work so much better than the generics!" It's the same reason that I can buy an expensive computer/phone/car with the same features as your off-brand, but still act like it's much better.
But I'm sure that has little to do with testing where you don't have to pay... just saying, in general.
Slashdot Mirror
it includes things like social security
Which is on the rapid road to failure...
public education
No^H^HEvery child left behind...
and science
Quickly losing ground here...
These things aren't inherently bad. But the government never quite stops where it should, and has managed to run at least the first two into the ground. Perhaps if the government would build the infrastructure and turn it over, slowly and carefully, to private industry, we would be in a lot better shape today in all areas.
No, to be fair, the South is producing some of the brightest minds and innovative solutions in the world. But it's ok, we'll let you Northerners and Westerners think that we all live in a 30-year old trailer and we do nothing but line-dancin', fishin', and cow-tippin'. Don't let the facts get in your way. Obviously, you do all the high-quality research into bioengineering, quantum physics, and new technologies that make the world so much better... we're just too stupid to understand that stuff.
I can definitely agree with the non-purist point of view. You can take everything to an extreme. When decoupling, you can pull so much out of your classes that they become anemic, and really you have something that no longer gains the benefits of OOP.
Among other things, it [IoC] tends to replace proper object-oriented design with service-centric one.
I disagree. I'm sure you could take it to that extreme, but I would say it tends to promote OO design. IoC relies on inheritance of interfaces and base classes. Without IoC, I've many times seen entire programs created without any inheritance at all (except maybe when the IDE does it for you, like in C#/WinForms when inheriting System.Windows.Forms.Form, which is provided by the Visual Studio designer).
So it's not replacing OO design, it's extending OO design. Be careful not to violate what you said in your next-to-last paragraph... OO is not the answer to everything.
What you've described is a problem with code duplication, not tight coupling.
No, it's a problem with coupling. I had practically everything in one class (a single form... again, bad practice). It was quite easy to write the first time around, but little did I know that 3 years later I would pay the price. Actually, I've paid the price pretty much every day of the past six years of maintenance. I waste time fixing problems that would have been obvious the first time around with a decoupled design.
Also, the problem would have been solved by unit tests (which do not require decoupling).
That's the thing... this code is not unit testable. Let me take that back. I probably could try, but every test would have database hits or web service hits and would take forever to run. Decoupling would remove those dependencies and provide testability that is tractable.
The problem is that we, as programmers, don't see the system as a whole - we see individual bricks
This is good. It's like having an atlas. We don't have to see every street in every city in the world. It has one map of the country (analagous to our IoC mappings), and more detailed maps of smaller areas like cities and states (individual classes)
and have to mentally reconstruct the whole thing
No, again IoC is the larger, less detailed map. That provides your reconstruction. IoC allows you to focus when you need to focus, and see the big picture when you need to do that.
Again, you have valid arguments when you take things to an extreme. That's where good design comes to play... and I would argue that "elegant" code is that which is designed with the best use of the principles and patterns that you know. Like you said, code gets ugly fast when you take a purist approach.
And don't be so afraid of things that provide more than one benefit simultaneously. Just because decoupling provides both maintainability and substitutability, and somewhat provides testability, doesn't mean it's bad. It just means that you need to be careful about the design, and to understand the difference in the benefits and when you take them to an extreme.
A good chunk of your post assumes that the ideas of interface-based decoupling, IoC, etc. are all unnatural. My guess is that those things are not your enemy, but that design is your problem.
It's probably true that most programmers decide, from day one of learning how to program, that tightly coupled code defers the difficult task of design until the very last possible minute. But that doesn't mean that decoupling is unnatural, and it is certainly not bad. It means that we need to teach programmers these principles from the start.
the cost of maintaining the loosely coupled code up to that point is actually much more than the price you'd have paid for refactoring it to suit your new needs if you left it simple (and more coupled) originally.
I don't see this at all. Maintainability is the point of loose coupling.
Case in point... I have been working on a data entry system for a few years now that, through previous design and my own old habits, has become very tightly coupled. Unit testing probably won't ever happen. I once needed to add a field in section 2. I did and released an update. A few days later, we noticed that data had been half-entered in hundreds of records. It took days to track down the issue... it turns out that I didn't find all the places that my field needed to be updated, and because of consistency errors, anytime a button was pressed in section 5, any future attempts to save the record were lost.
That situation probably never would have happened with loosely coupled code, because sections 2 and 5 would have had nothing to do with each other. All the places that a new field would need to be added would have been more obvious.
Be careful when making blanket statements about how complicated things are, when they are simply different. To me, the coupled code I have above is leaps-and-bounds more complicated than code that has a well thought-out design. Testability just happens to come for free.
(or IoC/DI with its maze of XML configs)
Why do you have a "maze" of IoC configs? It seems you're doing something wrong if that's a major issue.
Sometimes I need a phrase translated, and I know some of the words but not all. If I come across a translation that doesn't seem right at all, I'll get a second opinion by trying another engine, and usually by doing a reverse translation in both. And if I'm still skeptical, I'll just Google the translation and see if I can get the jist of the true meaning.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?
Objective-C is solid, only on its second release (2.0). It has a learning curve for most non-Apple devs. Based on Smalltalk, messages (methods) are bound at runtime. Garbage collection and properties were added in the latest version.
Java is very stable, but given the number of releases I would say less solid (it's on its seventh major release, with a beta for it's eighth). Based loosely on C++, but with garbage collection (no pointers), it is really the only system that produces true cross-platform binaries.
C# is on its third version (3), although the runtime is on its fifth (3.5). Most people agree that as a language, it is superior to Java due to support for events, functional/lambda-style programming, LINQ, generics (which are generally considered better than Java's), etc. C# is standardized, but open source/cross platform implementations (Mono) are behind those from Microsoft. Silverlight, however, is available cross-platform via Moonlight. The next version is in the works (C#/.NET 4.0).
I really don't get where you were saying "if you crash your data is gone". That doesn't even make sense, in the context of a computer programming language.
Windows 7 eats into Vista/XP market share. A 5.71% gain in Windows 7 is a 5.71% loss in Windows Vista/XP. Microsoft's market share has increased by 0% because of Windows 7.
Linux eats into Vista/XP market share. A 0.12% gain in Linux is a 0.12% loss in Windows Vista/XP. Microsoft's market share has been reduced by 0.12% because of Linux.
Microsoft has not gained any market share. So I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. They gain profits while losing customers?
The graph is kind of misleading, its not actually to scale
I think the point is to show that time prior to a point of interest shows one behavior, and the time after that shows another. If he had only shown 2-3 days prior, it would have looked basically the same.
Yes, he is misleading in the video, but having extra data is forgivable.
Basically I just wasted 15 minutes looking over worthless data on a random youtube video that doesn't actually say anything.
The validity of the data has nothing to do with the rest of your post. Is 15 days worth of data suddenly less worthwhile than 5?
Wrist watches are only good for video chat with your dog. That's why Penny also carried a netbook... er, computer book.
Now, if I only had a helicopter in my fedora, I'd be set.
That's my thought... but I still don't see how things like this get "crossed". Even if your IP address got switched with another during a request, at most I would expect you to wind up is receiving one page. When you load the next page, or make the next AJAX request, you wouldn't have the session cookie and it would kick you back to the login screen.
Unless of course Facebook sends the auth cookie in every response, or the "wires" got crossed just when the other person was making a login request.
"OMG Apple does what everyone else does..."
Not really. Most companies freely brag about their unreleased products in order to gain hype. Apple has everybody else brag about their products to gain hype. That keeps them legit and makes it hard to accuse them of announcing vaporware.
They're not trying to change the climate.
I never said they were. I was merely highlighting the OP's point (what I got from it), which is that global warming is a nice conjecture, but really there's no evidence of it (more precisely, there's no evidence that people are the cause of it).
But let's assume we are the cause... I once looked it up, and 15 cargo ships produce as much greenhouse gas as all the cars in the world combined. There are 90,000 cargo ships in the world that operate all the time. Do the math. Now, ask yourself why politicians care nothing about regulating overseas shipping, but want desperately to milk an extra couple of miles out of your gas tank at a price of hundreds or thousands of dollars to you?
Groan. And time for... yet another idiot confusing weather and climate.
You are so right... they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with each other. In fact, I would bet that every snow storm means that the climate is actually getting much hotter... sort of an inverse relationship. Except for in the summer (of course)... that's just the beginning of a 50,000 year global heat wave caused by cars and incandescent light bulbs.
Every stinkin' year, it gets cold and snows in Russia... will global warming ever end?
If one failed project helps a business prevent similar failure in future projects, has the failed project not produced some value after all?
Not really. Let's say that one succeeded and the future projects still succeed. Obviously that is positive compared with the failure you described. Let's say that the one succeeded and a future project failed, which then led to the experience to succeed at the other future projects. The overall state would have been neutral, on average.
There's no use praying for failure just so you can gain experience at failing.
Obviously your wrong because of the law of thermodynamics.
Yes, because this has something to do with thermal equilibrium, conservation of energy, perpetual motion machines, or cooling stuff to absolute zero.
In case you are confused, Wikipedia has a link for that.
iPod: Fits in pocket.
Netbook: Doesn't.
Couldn't that have something to do with it?
FYI, just because Jesus didn't address the nuances on how we came to be doesn't mean it's not more important than his message of forgiveness and love. Quite the opposite.
I doubt it. Jesus focused on grace and forgiveness... he meant *exactly* that those things were more important. He didn't say that origin was unimportant, but in the grand scheme of things, it's in the past and we can get all caught up in it (which is exactly why creationists need to figure out their priorities). We will never understand it as he understands it anyway.
Therefore he made lies and slander.
Just because God creates the ability to sin, and God creates the definition of the sin, does not mean that God condones the sin.
Luckily IBM never lowered themselves to such despicable practices.
This isn't about IBM. We're over them. Microsoft is still an overwhelming force in the industry.
They abused their monopoly by forcing OEMs to give them unfair advantages over competition. This isn't just an opinion... the only real competitor (Apple) has complete control over their hardware systems, and that's why they can compete.
I'm not following how it's difficult to sort. In fact, the YYYY-DDD format is completely natural, with the year followed by the number of days in the year.
The week numbering system may seem strange, but it still sorts correctly. You just have to remember that week one is the first week with 4 or more days in that year, not necessarily the week that contains Jan. 1.
The 39 days takes into account that fact. And remember, in 78 days Mars will have also completed 11% of its orbit, in the same direction.
Mars and Earth will be at their closest approach exactly halfway through the mission. If it were a single-pass mission, that would also be the time that the spacecraft was closest to Mars and farthest from Earth.
Apple has managed to expand the smartphone market to people who would not have paid that much for a phone a couple of years ago. During one of the worst recessions in American history.
Verizon might bring a better user experience than Apple has. But, given their track record, I doubt it. So like you alluded to, there is only a small market segment available for expensive devices that have awesome features but don't target the majority of users.
Then prosecute that person for breaking the law.
The GP may be exaggerating, but how about when I drive from Maine to the Grand Canyon and pretend it didn't happen? Or when I claim that my wife takes me to work every day (when I drive myself)?
And what if that isn't an exaggeration? I'm sure there are plenty of people with their 1960's muscle car in the garage, taking it out about twice a year to show off around the neighborhood.
She used to work at Verizon, and of course 300 bits is plenty.
The placebo affect can also be caused by pride. "I paid $300 for these pills, they work so much better than the generics!" It's the same reason that I can buy an expensive computer/phone/car with the same features as your off-brand, but still act like it's much better.
But I'm sure that has little to do with testing where you don't have to pay... just saying, in general.
They shouldn't be able to win until apple accepts the app for download.
Then the others shouldn't be able to win until Microsoft makes their app store and accepts the apps for download.