|
quote:Code repositories and version control are gone. We work on live sites (Pipelines protects us from stupidity), never document code (it's legible, that's the point), and focus on the client's business requirements. TBC alt dream job
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
tef posted:ala the old joke, we think 100 mi is a long distance and you think 100 years is a long time it was fun to say my school was twice as old as their country back when i was still in school
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Hard NOP Life posted:TBC alt dream job view source edit: wtf, the page inverted its colors after i posted this. it was white bg black logo before Malloc Voidstar fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Feb 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
lol oh god
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
ridiculous that end-to-end unicode is still so hard in tyool 2013
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
it's just part of pipelines http://gsin.holophrasticenterprises.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
oh hey this is still a thread, good to see re exception talk, as someone who works in an environment where checking int codes returned from function calls is the only available method of "error handling", I would much prefer checked exceptions the scalability issue of checked exceptions in practice exists exactly the same way with error codes - if you don't want to deal with a problem you simply return the code you don't want to handle to the next caller to deal with, the difference being of course that I might try to handle FNF_ERR not realizing that code 10116 in this particular case is actually SCK_ERR, while FileNotFoundException will not be mistaken by a developer for SocketException even if the compiler didn't catch the different types, which it does the real difference between checked exceptions and error codes is that "versionability" is way worse, since if a deep function suddenly returns a new code, you have to manually change every potential caller to handle that new code, and every caller that calls that function and so on, without a compiler to help you since the function signature hasn't changed imo checked exceptions offload error checking tedium/mistakes/unexpected runtime issues from the developer to the compiler as much as possible which is a good thing, further optimization is definitely possible but with tools/development practices/other extra-language approaches failure tolerant systems are a good idea when the failures you're tolerating can't be avoided like line noise, power outages, HDD failures and so on - coding to tolerate lovely developers is just asking for trouble
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
if you don't code for lovely developers, it's the end users that end up paying for it (e: or the lovely dev if your system is strict enough to keep them working until it's non-poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Aleksei Vasiliev posted:http://holophrasticenterprises.com/ lol, looks like somebody found out about 1001_cool_fonts.torrent
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Internaut! posted:oh hey this is still a thread, good to see actually we were talking about checked exceptions vs option types + match statements. the latter helps with fail fast and error handling, and also making flow control explicit rather than implicit flow control across multiple files, classes and packages. wooo non local exits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
quote:option types serious post: what makes you guys think the programmer won't just do case b of good(butt) => touchit | _ => ignore ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
@ tef: umm, Jeff Atwood co-founded Stack Overflow. You can't have your cake and eat it too, as they say. You used the term 'cognitive dissonance' in your talk and came up with your own doozy: "Jeff Atwood sucks but I love the tools he created that I use". Otherwise, I enjoyed your presentation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:serious post: what makes you guys think the programmer won't just do "but what if this is used by a moron?" is not really a very good point against anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
tef posted:@ tef: umm, Jeff Atwood co-founded Stack Overflow. You can't have your cake and eat it too, as they say. You used the term 'cognitive dissonance' in your talk and came up with your own doozy: "Jeff Atwood sucks but I love the tools he created that I use". Otherwise, I enjoyed your presentation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
yep, that's me i love copy editing role play games
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
YOSPOS: An adventure for character levels 69-420
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Shinku ABOOKEN posted:serious post: what makes you guys think the programmer won't just do morons will continue to white-knight java and php
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Jerry SanDisky posted:YOSPOS: An adventure for character levels 69-420
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:morons will continue to white-knight java and php java is the white knight who saved us from malloc before java, any language that wasn't C or C++ was stigmatized as a toy. they could be "RAD tools" or "scripting languages" but never a programming language for Serious Men to accomplish Serious Business Tasks at Serious Enterprises unfortunately this also somehow made php respectable. can't win'em'all
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:java is the white knight who saved us from malloc none of this is true at all. a shitton of software got written for Enterprises in vb, to which java is the spiritual successor. and a fair amount of pc software got written in delphi/object pascal as well, which incidentally was much better than java in every regard
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
also, you know, modula-3
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
Police Academy III posted:"but what if this is used by a moron?" is not really a very good point against anything. Counterpoint: the world and everybody in it
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
gently caress everything but
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:17
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:none of this is true at all. a shitton of software got written for Enterprises in vb, to which java is the spiritual successor. and a fair amount of pc software got written in delphi/object pascal as well, which incidentally was much better than java in every regard delphi and vb were both sold as "RAD tools," even though delphi at least was capable of being much, much more
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
ok, turbo pascal then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:delphi and vb were both sold as "RAD tools," even though delphi at least was capable of being much, much more "Almost Pascal".. and remember their custom loving Ugly-as-Motif poo poo they did? Yeah. That was loving awesome. ..now Android gives us that liberal homebrew-toolkit 1998 feel. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:none of this is true at all. a shitton of software got written for Enterprises in vb, to which java is the spiritual successor. and a fair amount of pc software got written in delphi/object pascal as well, which incidentally was much better than java in every regard I noticed that my university has a Delphi class taught by the CS department head. Is Delphi still common enough to make this class worth it? The other choice is an "Advanced Java" class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
Its the same class 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
it is kind of funny though that in the span of about 5 years the world went from "count them cycles, motherfucker" to OBJECTS ARE THE ONE TRUE WAY with nothing in between like, the c++ code that the gang of four book was based off (incidentally, this reminds me that smalltalk was also moderately commercially successful before java), which is about the worst poo poo ever written in the language, was drat close to doing the OO version of church numerals and thinking it was a good thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Bring back Clipper
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:it is kind of funny though that in the span of about 5 years the world went from "count them cycles, motherfucker" to OBJECTS ARE THE ONE TRUE WAY with nothing in between smalltalk was never successful because it was expensive and fragmented what could have been 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Ericadia posted:I noticed that my university has a Delphi class taught by the CS department head. Is Delphi still common enough to make this class worth it? The other choice is an "Advanced Java" class. generally speaking, don't take the commercial viability of a language into account when deciding what course to take, and also don't take courses about a particular programming language with a few rare exceptions that will be obvious when you see them however, if there is some requirement that only these two courses can fill, go delphi unless you want to work in the enterprise acid mines all you life in which case take the java course for the same reason that you get novocaine before having your wisdom teeth removed
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Jerry SanDisky posted:smalltalk was never successful because it was expensive and fragmented smalltalk and lisp are like the archaea of computing. forth too i guess
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
perhaps i have my history wrong, but i thought that smalltalk had the same level of niche success as forth (imagine a world where computing was based on stack machines running forth. like if penguins had evolved to intelligence rather than apes)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:generally speaking, don't take the commercial viability of a language into account when deciding what course to take, and also don't take courses about a particular programming language with a few rare exceptions that will be obvious when you see them Java is p good to learn as the JVM equivalent of C
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:perhaps i have my history wrong, but i thought that smalltalk had the same level of niche success as forth (imagine a world where computing was based on stack machines running forth. like if penguins had evolved to intelligence rather than apes) well, kinda except smalltalk was quite influential in terms of the object model it espoused
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
Jerry SanDisky posted:smalltalk was never successful because it was expensive and fragmented real life smalltalk story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Comprehensive_Compensation_System The C3 project started in 1993 by Tom Hadfield, Director of Payroll Systems, under the direction of CIO Susan Unger. The initial spark for the project was a small object-oriented prototype built by Hadfield. Smalltalk development was initiated in 1994. The end goal was to build a new system to support all the payroll processing for 87,000 employees by 1999.[1] In 1996 Kent Beck was hired to get the thing working; at this point the system had not printed a single paycheck.[2] Beck in turn brought in Ron Jeffries. In March 1996 the development team estimated that the system would be ready to go into production around one year later. In 1997 the development team adopted a way of working which is now formalized as Extreme Programming.[3] The one-year delivery target was nearly achieved, with the actual delivery being a couple of months late; the small delay being primarily due to lack of clarity regarding some business requirements.[4] A few months after this first launch, the project's customer representative — a key role in the Extreme Programming methodology — quit due to burnout and stress, and couldn't be replaced.[5] The plan was to roll out the system to different payroll 'populations' in stages, but C3 never managed to make another release despite two more years' development. The C3 system only ever paid 10,000 people.[6] Performance was something of a problem; during development it looked like it would take 1000 hours to run the payroll, but profiling activities reduced this to around 40 hours; another month's effort reduced this to 18 hours and by the time the system was launched the figure was 12 hours. During the first year of production the performance was improved to 9 hours.[7] Chrysler was bought out by Daimler-Benz in 1998, after the merger the company was known as DaimlerChrysler. DaimlerChrysler stopped the C3 project on 1 February 2000.[8] Frank Gerhardt, a manager at the company, announced to the XP conference in 2000 that DaimlerChrysler had de facto banned XP after shutting down C3;[9] however, some time later DaimlerChrysler resumed the use of XP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:30 |
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:perhaps i have my history wrong, but i thought that smalltalk had the same level of niche success as forth (imagine a world where computing was based on stack machines running forth. like if penguins had evolved to intelligence rather than apes) smalltalk had a little blip where IBM supported it, then spun off the brand as a java thing by the time the two other main smalltalk implementors merged, java was becoming a thing and welp
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:34
|
|