|
And that something could totally change one of the universe's most fundamental frameworks. A lot of us have put on mass these last few years
Why shouldn't the sub-atomic particles?
|
|
|
|
|
A small meteor that hit Earth in 2014 was from another star system, and may have left interstellar debris on the seafloor. The Truth is much more boring than the show
|
|
|
|
|
Which aliens do we ticket for littering then?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
It won't work. By definition, they have extraterratorial rights. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems obvious, but code isn’t only written for machines: it’s written for people, too. Overlooking this fact can cause problems. It was the Booch of times, it was the Wirth of times
Tried to get some actual programming terms in there, but my brain isn't up to it today (or all this year if I'm honest)
|
|
|
|
|
Let's create a bunch of @ codes, to keep from having to use //! Yay! Genius! Problem solved!
|
|
|
|
|
After repeatedly just being told that "literal programming" is good without an explanation what it actually is (just repeated buzz words of keeping prose and code somehow together), I decided to stop reading, some where in the middle of the long content-free article.
Oh sanctissimi Wilhelmus, Theodorus, et Fredericus!
|
|
|
|
|
The only content that I gleaned, apart from platitudes and mentions of various people and tools related to "literate programming", was that code should be documented inline, using natural language. And that this has become popular in statistics and data science programs. Well, duh. How those results are derived has to be described at the algorithmic level, to show the mathematics involved, but this is just fancy number crunching.
Although I almost always write proper sentences to document interfaces or functions, doing this inline doesn't work at the architectural level, where the rationale for a design cuts across code boundaries. Now you need separate documents, which these people say are a pain to keep synchronized with the code. Yes, but so are inline comments. More than once, I find outdated comments that I forgot to update when changing something.
And although I didn't verify this, it appears that they mark up these natural language comments. No thanks. I don't want to filter out this noise from the comments. I suppose it would work if the comments were displayed in a pane alongside the code, but that locks you into a specific IDE, which is presumptuous when other people are going to be using the code. Things like Doxygen make me puke.
|
|
|
|
|
It made me look up 'literate programming.' Here is a much better write up on it: https://blog.bitsrc.io/literate-programming-a-radical-approach-to-writing-code-with-documentation-ebb5dc892cd7. Here's one of the examples it gives. All of it is in a single text document, and the '@' signs designate code and such. Yech!
.. include:: <isoamsa.txt>
.. include:: <isopub.txt>
Introduction
This is the documentation for my own JavaScript library, it is meant to export two simple functions: sum and subtract.
These are very basic functions but they do server the purpose of show how literate programming works.
SUM function
The SUM function requires you to pass two different parameters a and b, both numbers ideally, but given JavaScript's nature, they can be anything.
@o mylib.js
@{
function sum(a, b) {
return a + b
}
@}
Subtract function
This function takes care of subtracting b from a whenever possible.
@o mylib.js
@{
function subtract(a, b) {
@<validate parameters@>
return a - b
}
@}
Snippets
The following snippets of code allow for common logic to be used in both functions:
@d validate...
@{if(typeof a == "undefined" || typeof b == "undefined") {
return 0
}@}
|
|
|
|
|
Way back in my student days - read: When research was published on paper, not on the net, so I never had a URL - I read a study where a large group of programming students were split in two and given the same program code to study. One half got the code laid out in the traditional 'programming' way, split on a large number of short lines (e.g. if-condition on one line, then-clause and else-clauses on separate lines). For the other half, the code was laid out much more like a traditional prose text, with no 'artificial' line breaks or indents, but logical sections indicated typographically the way a paragraph usually is indicated.
The time to study the code was deliberately set so short that you couldn't expect everyone to master all the details. The students were given a test to see how much they had picked up. It turned out that those who read the 'prose text formatting' version of the code scored markedly better on the test; they had a much better understanding of the logic of the code than those who had been reading it as short, 'structured' code setup.
Sorry, I do not have a photocopy of the article, and no URL (they hardly existed at the time). This is all from memory. I do not remember the programming language.
There is another element: In those days, students were used to book reading, both fiction prose and professional prose. 'TL:DR' didn't exist even at the conceptual level. Besides, commonly used programming languages tended to use more word symbols, being textually closer to common prose. Also, if you have been reading structured layout for forty years (and not a single novel during that time) is different from having started coding two or three years ago. So there is no guarantee that repeating the experiment today would give the same result.
Yet I found it fascinating then, and to a certain degree I it still fascinates me, that in a controlled test, the prose way of describing procedures turned out to be better than the very explicitly structured layout we all use today.
One may wonder why. In Norwegian, we have a way of speech, 'not seeing the forest for all the trees'. It is there, right in front of you, but you don't see it. Maybe you see the program structure, the block nesting of blocks, yet you have a hard time seeing the purpose of the structure, what it is used for. Especially when we are to explain a method to non-programmers, we might reconsider presenting the solution in an excessively 'structured' format. The audience might be overwhelmed by the structure, the trees, unable to see forest.
|
|
|
|
|
A survey of 140 enterprise architects and IT leaders published today suggested that, while moving applications to the cloud remains a priority, more attention is being paid to reducing technical debt by retiring applications. Looks right, looks left. Looks right, looks left. Where?
|
|
|
|
|
Aha... and that's why there are places where Windows XP still is active?
and not to mention that many some authorities are still using / requiring faxes... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The Rust language design team said that ‘flattening the learning curve’ could involve compiler improvements, improving async support, or extending the language or type system. Just leave your tools out in the rain and they should rust easily
modified 7-Apr-22 16:23pm.
|
|
|
|
|
"...extending the language or type system."
So, now the Rust devs (re)learn all the lessons that Bjarne Stroustrup learned as he created "nice little programming language." 
It was just going to be this easy, compact, clean little thing, right Rust devs? 
Bjarne Stroustrup : Why I created C++[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Meta seeks alternate revenue streams as popularity of its products plummets. Just for yucks
For both uses of ‘yucks’
|
|
|
|
|
So this must be what all those emails from Mark Zuckerberg are trying to give me. 
|
|
|
|
|
As is the case with every new public preview, there’s lots of new features to explore, as well as several improvements and bug fixes. Try it before it ships (and they can abandon it)
|
|
|
|
|
Smart App Control is coming, but the cost is a reset for existing Windows 11 users. Why lock the door when I can just get a new house?
"Any app Windows 11 considers shady will be blocked from opening." <- Yeah, I don't see any problems with that either.
|
|
|
|
|
Why bother? No common application requires Windows 11, so just use a good anti-virus/anti-malware combination.
I can see why an enterprise-sized organisation might want to save on the anti-virus fees. However, the cost of backing up, reinstalling from a base image, and customization, must be higher than the TCO for the anti-virus.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: However, the cost of backing up, reinstalling from a base image, and customization, must be higher than the TCO for the anti-virus.
They can avoid that by rolling it out over several years as they issue new machines.
More importantly, that means when they first encounter a 3rd party application that doesn't have MS's seal of approval and that they do need to be able to run, they won't have to revert the entire company back to standard win 11 installs.
This is just Windows RT/Win 10S wrapped up in a new iconname.
Quote:
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
One of the best parts of being Forrester’s CEO is that I have hundreds of analysts who help me understand new technology. So I thought I would share the wealth and pass on some of that knowledge to my fellow CEOs. It couldn't be worse, could it?
|
|
|
|
|
Is it ok, as a man, to cry while reading that article?
Asking for a friend
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Artificial Intelligence For CEOs
That's dropping the level even lower than "AI for dummies" 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
The editor of Visual Studio Magazine couldn't. Looks like there's a major one missing from their list
Posted mostly as a reminder to view those "Interview question" websites with a few grains of salt
|
|
|
|
|
It's time to open up command line and celebrate the 30th birthday of Windows 3.1. To celebrate, maybe spring for a new computer?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
