Don't need money, don't need fame, Don't need no credit card to ride this train, It's strong and it's sudden, it can be cruel sometimes, But it might just change your life, That's the power of Austim.
Do you really think that economic and political change is all that's needed to stop the Earth to do what it's been doing since long before humans exist and change on a global scale?
Are you going to anchor the continental plates to the moon or something as well?
The people behind the propaganda embedded in these websites don't built houses, they don't plant food. They're middle men. Humanity has no need for them. It's been pretty clearly demonstrated that people in information technology are capable of putting middle men out of business. It's so easy we do it in our spare time.
I've never been able to articulate it before but this is probably why I hate people in advertising so much.
They're full of such self importance for a role in society that is entirely unnecessary other than to serve itself.
"How much compute will this big data task require? Maybe we should leverage the synergy of the cloud!" and "How much compute does your new host mainframe have?" are both considered cromulent at this point.
Not this side of the Atlantic. Sweet Jesus how is that supposed to make any sense?
For Duke Nukem 3D there are a plethora of source code modifications I suggest you check out. At least one of them will amost certainly do it for you. Running on the original exe may well be a challenge. Surprised SoundBlaster wouldn't work to be fair though since that at least became the de-facto standard.
Personally, I found the nouning of "compute" to be more irksome, and that's fucking ubiquitous now. If I ever find the guy who started that trend, I would break his goddamn face.
Invent time travel first.
computer noun 1. Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations. Compare analog computer, digital computer. 2. a person who computes; computist Origin: 1640–50; compute + -er1; compare Middle French computeur
If you're going to try and be a grammar Nazi you've got to try and at least know something about languages first.
Technically, the Hebrew slaves built the pyramids.
Eh... probably not that either. There's no particular evidence for their existence in Egypt. Exodus using Egypt is like using the USA in the plot of your Evil Empire narrative - it works because everyone knows the players.
And before you dismiss that as ridiculous just remember that there are people out there who seriously believe that native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel.
We know meteorites abundant with iron are out their floating about. We know they sometimes crash to Earth.
We don't know if there are any alien life forms out there. We don't know if they've visited Earth. We don't know if they'd have any interest in leaving bits of iron about that look like iron from meteorites.
Occam's razor - choose the simplest.
The simplest explanation does not invoke things we've never seen before to explain the phenomena. Therefore aliens go home.
In practice, code reviews are superficial. No one has the time to spend more time reviewing code than it took to write it, and there's immense time pressure to resolve the issues and release the code.
I'd really be surprised if that were the case and I'd have to say you'd be doing it wrong - taking 8 hours to implement something doesn't mean you have 4 times as much code as something that took 2 hours to do - that would be the classic KLOC analytical approach to programming mistake. Also nothing says a code review is a one way thing - generally I'm looking for obvious deficiencies: can I read this code and actually understand it, and if I can't after spending a little time penetrating it can it be explained to me in understandably? If not it probably requires more work. Have you applied the style guidelines and if not why not (the Brown M&Ms test). Does this code do exactly the same thing I know something else is already doing? And as these are all questions not statements it implies that the person whose code I am reviewing should have good answers if they expect it to pass my review.
You may see it as a waste of time that could be spent coding more stuff to fix more stuff - I see it as time spent not having to analyse code later when some piece of crap that wasn't properly reviewed causes a production issue and then suddenly everone has a real interest in the quality of the code. And given the frequency at which I see stuff that would have obviously caused problems down the line I think I've come to the right conclusion.
ZX Spectrum +3 for my 7th Birthday. Also had played aorund with batch scripts on my grandmother's Amstrad PC1512 but not much programming there. Typed in the BASIC from the manual, then from library books then from magazine listings - including the obligatory DATA statements containing machine code. By age 12 my Dad had found a book on Z80 assembler and I was using an assembler from a magazine tape cover to do some funky things with the screen but never did much too substantial. (Most I ever did was to hack the type in listing for a clock in order that I could put that clock into an IM2 routine and then overlay it on the +3 BASIC editing mode's black bar so it replicated the look of a PC corner clock and do something similar for a SoundTracker song routine so I could listen to a tune whilst typing as well). Mostly continued along with the hacking stuff during secondary school as I got my first PCs and I wanted to modify Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem 3d and the like - which were readily there for the hacking. Not much proper programming there until Uni and work.
And comments can be true while code is completely wrong.
Well... no. Code is always going to do what it's going to do. If someone failed to do what was actually intended for the program that's a whole other set of problems where you're asking who checked the implementation and why it passed testing (assuming it went into production).
I've found, far too often that developers who say "read the code" have written complete nonsense.
You have to be able to read code though at some point - you really can't know what is going on for sure unless you do. If someone is producing an unpenetrable mess of code with no documentation under the idea that documentation is not necessary because the code is there then they have two problems. I only tend to comment code itself when something unintuitive is being done that I wouldn't expect anyone to really be able to see at first. Commenting simple loops and such - the stuff that should be the bread and butter of much development - shouldn't be necessary. If it looks complex decompose it into separate functions as much as you can and give them a name invocative of their function. You might even generate an opportunity for code re-use! Documenting an API is a different matter -and that doesn't have to mean you write libraries for drivers or something, just that you're producing something that you expect other people to be able to use without having to modify what you've provided.
If the code is at complete variance with the comments, then it's a helpful warning that _both_ are wrong.
True - there are many crap programmers around; but that is what things like code reviews should be for.
Absolutely but I don't get to review every line (although I certainly try because I often wonder WTF is being check in other people's code reviews) and I can't do much about the code that was written years ago that has been left to bitrot.
If you find a programmer who does that sort of thing do you want to continue to employ him ?
No, not really. But fucked if it's my choice or if I know where the hell the programmers are who don't do this stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't need money, don't need fame,
Don't need no credit card to ride this train,
It's strong and it's sudden, it can be cruel sometimes,
But it might just change your life,
That's the power of Austim.
Do you really think that economic and political change is all that's needed to stop the Earth to do what it's been doing since long before humans exist and change on a global scale?
Are you going to anchor the continental plates to the moon or something as well?
I've never been able to articulate it before but this is probably why I hate people in advertising so much.
They're full of such self importance for a role in society that is entirely unnecessary other than to serve itself.
Bacteria form memories?
I base my eating preferences on how well it goes with Tabasco source and I find Anonymous Coward meat is spiced up real good.
What brand of "faggot" exactly do you think there is in US politics is going to do anything differently?
He burns all Hyundai on sight just incase...
They hardly seem like the exception when people will go about explictly trying to eek out depth of interpretation from them.
Fine, it's like some weird Treissand effect.
Microsoft really need to watch their own "your privacy is our priority" ads.
2 Star 2 Wars
I think there may be a little more than a hint of performance art in that post.
Advertisers and those who sell their billboards apparently do.
But they're scum so it's to be expected.
Not this side of the Atlantic. Sweet Jesus how is that supposed to make any sense?
For Duke Nukem 3D there are a plethora of source code modifications I suggest you check out. At least one of them will amost certainly do it for you. Running on the original exe may well be a challenge. Surprised SoundBlaster wouldn't work to be fair though since that at least became the de-facto standard.
Invent time travel first.
computer
noun
1.
Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations. Compare analog computer, digital computer.
2.
a person who computes; computist
Origin:
1640–50; compute + -er1; compare Middle French computeur
If you're going to try and be a grammar Nazi you've got to try and at least know something about languages first.
I can't help the companies I'm not part of to not do stupid things. I have my work cut out for me here.
Eh... probably not that either. There's no particular evidence for their existence in Egypt. Exodus using Egypt is like using the USA in the plot of your Evil Empire narrative - it works because everyone knows the players.
And before you dismiss that as ridiculous just remember that there are people out there who seriously believe that native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel.
And white.
No.
We know meteorites abundant with iron are out their floating about. We know they sometimes crash to Earth.
We don't know if there are any alien life forms out there. We don't know if they've visited Earth. We don't know if they'd have any interest in leaving bits of iron about that look like iron from meteorites.
Occam's razor - choose the simplest.
The simplest explanation does not invoke things we've never seen before to explain the phenomena. Therefore aliens go home.
No, the pyramids are the landing platforms, not the ships.
I'd really be surprised if that were the case and I'd have to say you'd be doing it wrong - taking 8 hours to implement something doesn't mean you have 4 times as much code as something that took 2 hours to do - that would be the classic KLOC analytical approach to programming mistake. Also nothing says a code review is a one way thing - generally I'm looking for obvious deficiencies: can I read this code and actually understand it, and if I can't after spending a little time penetrating it can it be explained to me in understandably? If not it probably requires more work. Have you applied the style guidelines and if not why not (the Brown M&Ms test). Does this code do exactly the same thing I know something else is already doing? And as these are all questions not statements it implies that the person whose code I am reviewing should have good answers if they expect it to pass my review.
You may see it as a waste of time that could be spent coding more stuff to fix more stuff - I see it as time spent not having to analyse code later when some piece of crap that wasn't properly reviewed causes a production issue and then suddenly everone has a real interest in the quality of the code. And given the frequency at which I see stuff that would have obviously caused problems down the line I think I've come to the right conclusion.
ZX Spectrum +3 for my 7th Birthday. Also had played aorund with batch scripts on my grandmother's Amstrad PC1512 but not much programming there. Typed in the BASIC from the manual, then from library books then from magazine listings - including the obligatory DATA statements containing machine code. By age 12 my Dad had found a book on Z80 assembler and I was using an assembler from a magazine tape cover to do some funky things with the screen but never did much too substantial. (Most I ever did was to hack the type in listing for a clock in order that I could put that clock into an IM2 routine and then overlay it on the +3 BASIC editing mode's black bar so it replicated the look of a PC corner clock and do something similar for a SoundTracker song routine so I could listen to a tune whilst typing as well). Mostly continued along with the hacking stuff during secondary school as I got my first PCs and I wanted to modify Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem 3d and the like - which were readily there for the hacking. Not much proper programming there until Uni and work.
Well... no. Code is always going to do what it's going to do. If someone failed to do what was actually intended for the program that's a whole other set of problems where you're asking who checked the implementation and why it passed testing (assuming it went into production).
You have to be able to read code though at some point - you really can't know what is going on for sure unless you do. If someone is producing an unpenetrable mess of code with no documentation under the idea that documentation is not necessary because the code is there then they have two problems. I only tend to comment code itself when something unintuitive is being done that I wouldn't expect anyone to really be able to see at first. Commenting simple loops and such - the stuff that should be the bread and butter of much development - shouldn't be necessary. If it looks complex decompose it into separate functions as much as you can and give them a name invocative of their function. You might even generate an opportunity for code re-use! Documenting an API is a different matter -and that doesn't have to mean you write libraries for drivers or something, just that you're producing something that you expect other people to be able to use without having to modify what you've provided.
And that someone is hankering for a spankering.
Absolutely but I don't get to review every line (although I certainly try because I often wonder WTF is being check in other people's code reviews) and I can't do much about the code that was written years ago that has been left to bitrot.
No, not really. But fucked if it's my choice or if I know where the hell the programmers are who don't do this stuff.
No it isn't.
Seriously I see stuff like this in legacy code all the time:
i--
Comments lie, code doesn't. Someone is going to update the code and not bother with the comments.