|
MarkTJohnson wrote: Without it most of us wouldn't have jobs.
True, dat!
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
A team of researchers at Johannes Kepler University, in Austria, has developed a series of tiny, steerable electromechanical robots that can walk, run, jump and swim at high speeds for their size. Are they to control tiny gazelle robots?
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but a cheetah, or even a turtle, can still outrun them. 
|
|
|
|
|
For more than a decade I have been thundering against a lot of the bad practices that have permeated the software development industry, one such practice is to blindly trust code when using third party libraries, frameworks or packages. Can I get an "amen"?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: No matter how important it is for the client or the company to get working code delivered fast, you have to teach them that this practice just doesn't work, and that they have misunderstood something, because this is not how real software is made!
For some reason I wouldn't think that they could give a ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) how real software is made.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
jeron1 wrote: I wouldn't think that they could give a [mastadon] how real software is made.
You are, unfortunately, correct. 
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: jeron1 wrote:I wouldn't think that they could give a [mastadon] how real software is made.
You are, unfortunately, correct.
Also, like most people, I do not know much about how a real car is made. Or a recliner. Or spaghetti. I saw a couple TV programs about how pork is made and how chicken are made; they almost made me a vegetarian.
I really shouldn't have to worry about how the software I buy is made - no more than I worry about how my coffee machine or SLR camera is made. I shouldn't have to. The manufacturers should have a professional pride that made it unnecessary for me to worry; I should trust him.
Unfortunately, we haven't been given our customers very good reasons to trust us (I have been in software development myself all my professional life). If we have any professional pride to talk of, it relates to benchmark tests. Or SW development related things, such as which programming languages have been used (e.g. reflecting the initial of the language in the product initial) - as if the customer cared. Out of a hundred thousand customers, how many will really make use of the 'open source' that we promote so eagerly?
How often do you see 'qualities' of the software promoted as a sales point - in the sense of qualities actually requested by customers? To me, the the majority of "What's new in this version" lists resemble the front pages of tabloid newspapers. They are eye catchers (or, let's use the modern term: click baits) that really doesn't reflect very much of importance to the customers.
I cannot stand up for myself and my co-workers (at any of the places I have worked) and declare that we are esteemed craftsmen, taking pride in satisfying the customer quality requirements. We satisfy customers enough to sell the product. Not much more.
It has been like this ever since I was a student, and C (with no checking whatsoever on out-of-bounds array index checking) pushed out Pascal (where you had to explicitly turn off index checking): The student group was split into two camps, the C camp insisting that we couldn't waste resources on such luxury - it would cause the program to grow in size and run slower. The Pascal camp gradually dwindled away ... and hasn't ever risen. (It is less than a year since I last met the argument against C# that bounds checking makes the code run unacceptably slow; C is the only option if you want 'optimal' speed.)
So I fully support Unix Sheik. But this is our responsibility. We must give the customer good reasons for trusting the quality of our work; it is not his responsibility to relate to our work practices. No more than for coffee machines, spaghetti or cars.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with much of what you say.
What people fail to understand is that software is orders of magnitude more complex than a recliner, or a coffee machine, or most other physical goods. This is compounded by many non-technical people's attitude that "it's just software; it can easily be re-written." This means that when a hardware person says that it will take 4 weeks to build something, it's accepted, but when a software person says that, he/she is often told "well, why can't you do it in 2 weeks?"
Every program that we write is not mass-produced, but is a hand-built prototype. We are craftsmen in the age of mass production, which is another reason why our work is misunderstood.
Even so, the tools to assist proper design, coding, and debugging exist (e.g. CMMI, etc.), but I have yet to find a single company that is willing to make the investment. Either the initial cost or internal politics seem to derail the project every time. I can only conclude that this chaos is, somehow, desirable to upper management.
As for bounds-checking and validation, C is naturally sparse in this matter. If you write your code properly, the validation is performed at the input stage, and all other code gets sanitized data. This may be checked using asserts at the entrance to each function. If you do this, validation of each array access is superfluous.
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: As for bounds-checking and validation, C is naturally sparse in this matter. If you write your code properly, the validation is performed at the input stage, and all other code gets sanitized data. This may be checked using asserts at the entrance to each function. If you do this, validation of each array access is superfluous.
Any optimizing compiler doing proper flow analysis should identify cases where indexes are guaranteed to be within bounds, and suppress index checks when unnecessary. A compiler that doesn't detect that there is no way for an index to be out-of-bounds, but still generates code to check the index, cannot by any measures be called 'optimizing'.
If flow analysis shows that there is a possibility for out-of-bounds access, then the compiler should generate checks. A compiler that doesn't detect thatthat an array index could possibly be out-of-bounds, but goes on to generate code for a possibly faulty array access without any check, without any warning, is faulty.
Unfortunately, this is incompatible with a major part of C(++) code (and its formal language definition).
That is also why all of my coding is incompatible with C(++) semantics.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen, Brother!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Nearly 93% of IT leaders surveyed said that they found the process of application modernization challenging due to issues such as staffing and unavailability of tools, according to an Asperitas Consulting report. Maybe they should get their dev teams to try instead?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: of application modernization challenging due to issues such as staffing and unavailability of tools,
No fvck sherlock... if they didn't wait until everything needed is obsolete or the people knowing about the system get retired... 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Despite previously claiming the DogWalk vulnerability did not constitute a security issue, Microsoft has now released a patch to stop attackers from actively exploiting the vulnerability. And take your dog for a walk. They're a good doggo and deserve it. And a treat.
|
|
|
|
|
C# 11 release date is just around the corner, and we will show what's new and preview some of the features that can be used for .NET 7. Oh, thank heaven for version 7/11
Yeah, yeah. "This one goes to 11". I think I used it too recently.
And sorry for leaning on the blasphemous commercial blurb.
|
|
|
|
|
Intel has released 48 benchmarks that show its upcoming Arc A750 GPU should be able to trade blows with Nvidia’s RTX 3060 running modern games. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and benchmarks
|
|
|
|
|
Security researchers found several vulnerabilities that allowed them to take remote control of internet-connected devices that control door locks. This is why I never lock my doors
"The caveat in their research is that malicious hackers would need to get into the building’s network first, in order to target the access control systems." So, to get someone inside, they just need to get someone inside. Mission accomplished!
|
|
|
|
|
I'll stick with a good old fashioned key based deadbolt combined with a different key based door lock.
|
|
|
|
|
Or... DIY electronic RFID Door Lock with Battery Backup[^]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Scientists have proposed a new theory for why certain kinds of mental effort feel so draining. Sorry, no blurb. Going for a nap.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: After the tasting, the radish and cookie groups, along with a control group who didn’t eat anything, were given a difficult puzzle: they were asked to trace a geometric figure without lifting their pen from paper, or crossing over any lines twice. Unbeknownst to them, the puzzles were unsolvable, and the researchers measured how long it would take the groups to give up. The radish group gave up more quickly than the chocolate group—potentially, the scientists argued, because they had already depleted mental energy in forgoing the temptation to eat cookies.
Apparently I'm overestimating the average intelligence of the participants or the researchers underestimated it. This result is the opposite of what I'd've expected; which is that the brain-fried people would start dragging the pen around failing to trace it, while those who were still alert would just quickly examine the graph see at least 3 nodes with odd numbers of lines and realize it was futile almost immediately.
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
|
|
|
|
|
I would have failed the radish group test.
|
|
|
|
|
Immersive experiences, AI automation and new data platforms are among the innovations topping Gartner's 2022 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies. It's Gartner, so you know it's 100% accurate +/- 120%, 22 times out of 20
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: It's Gartner, so you know it's 100% accurate +/- 120%, 22 times out of 20
Damn! You nailed that statistic!
|
|
|
|
|
I have heard about only a small handful of these 25, and for most of those I have heard of, they are so vague that I wouldn't be able to explain the concept to a twelve year old so that he would understand. Most of the 25 concepts are likely to die out without ever affecting me and my work at all.
Admittedly, my daily life is not very hype oriented. I find it more important to develop usable software than to subscribe to every new hype offered in the software development marketplace.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: Admittedly, my daily life is not very hype oriented. I find it more important to develop usable software than to subscribe to every new hype offered in the software development marketplace.
you are not the only one.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
