|
Kent Sharkey wrote: And 7% believe Elvis is still alive
But Elvis is alive !
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
If Elvis was still alive he would be dead by now 
|
|
|
|
|
And it includes those 27 virtual machines we have for testing and no one touches...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
"I do believe that with the right safeguards, there are cases where the government, on our behalf — like stopping terrorism, which could get worse in the future — that that is valuable." For those who have been waiting for His Billness' opinion
|
|
|
|
|
Explains a lot about so many of the Microsoft products I've used (and not used).
There are two types of people in this world: those that pronounce GIF with a soft G, and those who do not deserve to speak words, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
Just goes to show the creative genius of the past wasn't by Microsoft... they just copied. His lack of foresight is saddening.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
that's not surpise... heck... just have a look to Win10 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Articulate as ever, I see.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
MasterCard says it plans to bring "selfie pay" security checks to more than a dozen countries. Last year, the company started trialling the technology — which uses facial recognition to authenticate users' identity — but now says it has firm plans to roll the feature out to users after positive reactions from testers. You kids can get off my lawn now
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: and MasterCard says its algorithms can tell when someone is trying to fool the system by using a video
Oh...Sure...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
A quick insight into overloading ".", as required for smart references:
isocpp.org[^]
Worth it for a single quote alone: "C++ protects against Murphy, not Machiavelli".
Sadly it is mentioned at a quote, but has no attribution in that article. Possibly Herb Sutter, a similar phrase crops up here: GOTW[^]
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
SkiaSharp provides a powerful C# API for doing 2D graphics powered by Google’s Skia library, the same library that powers Google Chrome, Firefox, and Android’s graphic stacks. Because System.Drawing is so last century
|
|
|
|
|
TypeScript 1.8 provides full support for module augmentation, delivers a stronger type system with string literal types, and catches even more common bugs with smarter control flow analysis. For those who like their var to be a little more detailed
|
|
|
|
|
If you’re not familiar and don’t have time to read the linked Wikipedia page, SOLID is a mnemonic acronym for five principles of object oriented programming or, as I hinted, really just programming in general (except, perhaps for the Liskov Substitution Principle). These concepts have been around since at least the early 2000s and have truly stood the test of time. "And now it's solid. Solid as a rock"
|
|
|
|
|
She's a brick house! 
|
|
|
|
|
SOLID is way overrated! They have unsuccessfully tried to sell it for many years for the simple reason it is nothing of any useful sort at all!
I rather much prefer the KISS methodology! With an occasional spike of intellectual effort, to make it more simple the rest of the time!
I would go further, if it's not KISS, it's worthless!
I am looking at you the many (many many) multi layered abstraction layers architectures....
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: SOLID is way overrated!
In what way? I haven't heard any hype or fanfare around SOLID as they are just a set of design principles.
Super Lloyd wrote: They have unsuccessfully tried to sell it for many years
Who is selling it? Are you sure you're not getting mixed up with Agile or some other methodology?
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
I replied to Peter below[^]!...
|
|
|
|
|
In most cases, I tend to find that SOLID apps are the most likely to fall into the KISS criteria. Which bit of SOLID do you disagree with?
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
well.. it's just a rant to be accurate.. but here is the background story of my outburst:
I found out that people who like principle, often overlook simplicity.
in my previous company, full of web developer, some of them (and some project manager) would stick to their multi layered bloated mess of a thing that would make project so overtly complex, overtime and buggy (although, since they are paid by the hours.. there is value in that).
and I compare that to successfully delivered project of similar size delivered in less time and less bug, not just mere frustration.
They would always use some abstract principle (like separation of concern or, yes! SOLID) to justify it in some vaporous misleaded ways... (they read the book or had the training, you see!)
my take on it is people who value principles over simplicity (and not simplicity as a "pattern" since there is no such thing, but as something you learn to perceive after programming for... 18 years..) are... a bad thing to have...
and.. if one must take something from the book I will favor technique over principle. technique is a mere tool to use when appropriate... and ignore at others...
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think this is a reflection on SOLID, rather it's a reflection on people who try to appear cleverer than they are. Sometimes it's an experience thing - it takes a lot of hard work to get to the point where you write less code to solve a problem. Experience brings you an arsenal of tricks that you can use to simplify your code.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
That's the problem. People are abusing how to do things and they blame on the principle.
|
|
|
|
|
It's taking me a lot of hard work to figure out who's really SOLID, and who's just cleverly impersonating SOLID. But, if there's anybody who's SOLID around here, I am sure it is Pete O'Hanlon. Pete O'Hanlon wrote: a lot of hard work to get to the point where you write less code to solve a problem
Amen to that ! And, I think that to some extent "serendipity" come into play with that: in the original tale of the "Princes of Serendip" from which that word comes, an essential ingredient was that the Princes were actively looking for something, and they had the quality of "sagacity," the ability to recognize that fortuitious moment of discovery as being as important as it was.
Unfortunately, "serendipity" has now become mis-used to mean "weird stuff just happens," or refer to various mystical manifestations of whatever.
«In art as in science there is no delight without the detail ... Let me repeat that unless these are thoroughly understood and remembered, all “general ideas” (so easily acquired, so profitably resold) must necessarily remain but worn passports allowing their bearers short cuts from one area of ignorance to another.» Vladimir Nabokov, commentary on translation of “Eugene Onegin.”
|
|
|
|
|
This really has nothing at all to do with the SOLID principles. Imposing multi-layered architectures where they don't add any value is just poor design. In fact Joel Spolsky famously refers to these types as "Architecture Astronauts". They are just too far removed from the problem as to make any real contribution.
The SOLID principles are well worth understanding and mastering. Your applications will be all the better for doing so.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Burford wrote: Architecture Astronauts
Love it!
Must be that! 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
