Actually, that was exactly my point. A templating language like smarty does separate the presentation logic from the business logic -- but it does so by using a parsed language to parse yet another language, which is not the height of efficiency. PHP itself can be used in the same way, without introducing the additional overhead.
But then, this topic has been covered by others far more eloquentthan me.
However, you can use the Smarty templating library to separate code and presentation (and I recommend this to anyone learning PHP, because embedding PHP in HTML makes for very sloppy and nigh unreadable code).
Come again? You're saying that {$value} somehow separates presentation from code more than does <?=$value;?>?
From TFA: What is a publisher to do when it finds out that it can't get students to buy e-textbooks when they expire after a mere four months? By changing one line of code, those four months can be expanded to a full year
::gasp::! Wow! Gosh! I can pay $85 for a book and get to keep it for a year?! Golly gee, where do I sign!
From TFA:
But, I've argued that for the past few days, so let's move on to the point of this post, which is to detail an area of invention Microsoft is singularly good at (one that the open source competition will have some difficultly matching).s not so much of an invention per se.
Right. Inventors who don't invent! It's perfectly clear now!
1. The copyright holder is only deprived of *potential* income. As neither of us knows if a specific person would have paid for the crap he downloaded and never listened to, you can't say that he was deprived of any real income. He only lost something he never had
That's nothing but a cheap justification. At least the (grand)parent poster had the balls to admit that stealing is stealing, and not try to paint a pretty picture around it or justify it. Depriving someone of *potential* income is stealing, just as much as any other form.
It just so happens to be that the people we're "depriving of *potential* income" are the big bad record labels -- so nobody much gives a shit. If it actually/was/ the artist, how would you justify it then?
How does this have anything to do with the topic at hand? And more importantly, what's "+4 insightful" about it?
Oops, sorry, this could be construed as supporting Bush. Best to mod me flaimbait to be safe.
"With the manual process of patching, we were spending about two days a month ensuring that and testing. A lot of people call it a soft cost, because you've got IT people anyway but they shouldn't be spending all day maintaining the system," Mr Horton says.
So there's no need to test the automatic updates from Windows.... just the manual ones from RH. If that's the case, they should have just put yum or rhn on cron - no testing required!
IE exploits are patched because they are abused, regularly.
FF exploits are patched before that happens.
Secondarily, a more accurate comparison of security holes can be found be comparing ie when it was a couple of years old to firefox now.
Not if the server supplies the AI.
In which case, it would be more like players betting on the bots abilities, as opposed to betting on the cards/hands.
Bright lights and easy to use software helped University of Cambridge researchers defeat tamper-proofing on letters telling people their new Pin.
Say, wait. Is the gimp only easy to use when you want to hack a snail-mail letter?
I work for a bank that's outsourcing call centers and some IT work to India. It's to soon to say for the call centers -- but I know that it does not in the long term save money for IT.
Objectively: absolutely, the up-front costs are much cheaper for much of our software development work. $25/hr outsourced labor compared to $75+/hr for onshore work -- there really is no comparison.
The problems begin when we first receive the work back. If it's a simple project (bug fixes and the like), there are few issues. Anything of any complexity often does not meet all requirements. Additional development is required -- however, it this point it's still far cheaper.
Once all development is complete, we review it with our onshore team. The time and cost of this review process is not taken into account.
Typically, there are a handful of minor issues -- this is normal for any kind of development. Also typically, there are one or two major issues. Because of the schedule of our releases, about 90% of the time we're stuck in a positon where we have to say, "We'lil have to address these issues later, there's no time left.". And I suspect that most of us here know that 'later' never comes.
These issues frequently return to haunt us -- I'm dealing with things today that were done "for now" 3 years ago, and it's a much bigger problem now.
Now, the true cost is no longer measured strictly in terms of development hours. Because at this point, there has been customer impact. Our call center users have to work around this issue in the software, which increases their call handle time. (Call handle time quickly adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually when aggregated)
Subjectively: I've canceled my own credit card account with the bank I work for because I called for service and had to repeat myself several times in order to make myself understood. I speak fairly clearly, and this has never been a problem in the past. Secondarily, I had a very difficult time understanding the rep because of their accent. This in spite of the fact that I am pretty good with accents, since many of my coworkers over the last few years are from India.
Monitoring calls has shown me other account holders closing for similar reasons -- however the company will most likely never realize this, since the list of reasons for account closure does not include "customer service".
Realistically: I believe that the true cost of this is too long-term for most companies to accurately measure. The people who track these things in our company have not requested us to put, "I didn't like his accent" in the list of reasons a customer may close their account. They also don't consider the broader impacts of a change that is done incorrectly the first time.
Without acknowledgement that these things exist as valid issues, the true price of outsourcing can never be accurately measured.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that was exactly my point. A templating language like smarty does separate the presentation logic from the business logic -- but it does so by using a parsed language to parse yet another language, which is not the height of efficiency. PHP itself can be used in the same way, without introducing the additional overhead.
But then, this topic has been covered by others far more eloquentthan me.
However, you can use the Smarty templating library to separate code and presentation (and I recommend this to anyone learning PHP, because embedding PHP in HTML makes for very sloppy and nigh unreadable code).
Come again? You're saying that {$value} somehow separates presentation from code more than does <?=$value;?>?
From TFA:
::gasp::! Wow! Gosh! I can pay $85 for a book and get to keep it for a year?! Golly gee, where do I sign!
What is a publisher to do when it finds out that it can't get students to buy e-textbooks when they expire after a mere four months? By changing one line of code, those four months can be expanded to a full year
From TFA: But, I've argued that for the past few days, so let's move on to the point of this post, which is to detail an area of invention Microsoft is singularly good at (one that the open source competition will have some difficultly matching).s not so much of an invention per se. Right. Inventors who don't invent! It's perfectly clear now!
1. The copyright holder is only deprived of *potential* income. As neither of us knows if a specific person would have paid for the crap he downloaded and never listened to, you can't say that he was deprived of any real income. He only lost something he never had
/was/ the artist, how would you justify it then?
That's nothing but a cheap justification. At least the (grand)parent poster had the balls to admit that stealing is stealing, and not try to paint a pretty picture around it or justify it. Depriving someone of *potential* income is stealing, just as much as any other form.
It just so happens to be that the people we're "depriving of *potential* income" are the big bad record labels -- so nobody much gives a shit. If it actually
How does this have anything to do with the topic at hand? And more importantly, what's "+4 insightful" about it? Oops, sorry, this could be construed as supporting Bush. Best to mod me flaimbait to be safe.
Here it is phonetically: An-Ja-nap-pa, Mu-ni-swa-map-pa
You're right, very simple. Just one question: Would that be "Ahn Jah Nahp pah" or "An jay nape ah"? "Moo-nee-swah-mahp-pah" or "Mew-nih-swah-map-puh"?
"With the manual process of patching, we were spending about two days a month ensuring that and testing. A lot of people call it a soft cost, because you've got IT people anyway but they shouldn't be spending all day maintaining the system," Mr Horton says. So there's no need to test the automatic updates from Windows .... just the manual ones from RH. If that's the case, they should have just put yum or rhn on cron - no testing required!
IE exploits are patched because they are abused, regularly. FF exploits are patched before that happens. Secondarily, a more accurate comparison of security holes can be found be comparing ie when it was a couple of years old to firefox now.
No I am not a apple whore I'm an apple whore. Wait, I misspoke. I meant, "I like apple juice."
Not if the server supplies the AI. In which case, it would be more like players betting on the bots abilities, as opposed to betting on the cards/hands.
Bright lights and easy to use software helped University of Cambridge researchers defeat tamper-proofing on letters telling people their new Pin. Say, wait. Is the gimp only easy to use when you want to hack a snail-mail letter?
... to just open the letter and copy down the PIN?
I work for a bank that's outsourcing call centers and some IT work to India. It's to soon to say for the call centers -- but I know that it does not in the long term save money for IT.
Objectively: absolutely, the up-front costs are much cheaper for much of our software development work. $25/hr outsourced labor compared to $75+/hr for onshore work -- there really is no comparison.
The problems begin when we first receive the work back. If it's a simple project (bug fixes and the like), there are few issues. Anything of any complexity often does not meet all requirements. Additional development is required -- however, it this point it's still far cheaper.
Once all development is complete, we review it with our onshore team. The time and cost of this review process is not taken into account.
Typically, there are a handful of minor issues -- this is normal for any kind of development. Also typically, there are one or two major issues. Because of the schedule of our releases, about 90% of the time we're stuck in a positon where we have to say, "We'lil have to address these issues later, there's no time left.". And I suspect that most of us here know that 'later' never comes.
These issues frequently return to haunt us -- I'm dealing with things today that were done "for now" 3 years ago, and it's a much bigger problem now.
Now, the true cost is no longer measured strictly in terms of development hours. Because at this point, there has been customer impact. Our call center users have to work around this issue in the software, which increases their call handle time. (Call handle time quickly adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually when aggregated)
Subjectively: I've canceled my own credit card account with the bank I work for because I called for service and had to repeat myself several times in order to make myself understood. I speak fairly clearly, and this has never been a problem in the past. Secondarily, I had a very difficult time understanding the rep because of their accent. This in spite of the fact that I am pretty good with accents, since many of my coworkers over the last few years are from India.
Monitoring calls has shown me other account holders closing for similar reasons -- however the company will most likely never realize this, since the list of reasons for account closure does not include "customer service".
Realistically: I believe that the true cost of this is too long-term for most companies to accurately measure. The people who track these things in our company have not requested us to put, "I didn't like his accent" in the list of reasons a customer may close their account. They also don't consider the broader impacts of a change that is done incorrectly the first time.
Without acknowledgement that these things exist as valid issues, the true price of outsourcing can never be accurately measured.
Sorry, no funny or insightful comments offhand, just wanted to say thanks for a good article.