|
In the process of importing data from different sources; kept going back and forth: adding a field here and there; another enum; another conversion run. Heavy sigh.
I finally put the "source" text in one property and overlayed it with a bunch of "Get's":
IsItThis => Contains ...
IsItThat => ...
DivisionNumber => Substring ...
UnitType => Parse( ...)
etc.
No more "data"; just code.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: back and forth: adding a field here and there; another enum; another conversion run
Very long ago I learned to do write code to create code. My tool of choice for that is Perl.
Probably my most ambitious project was when I used a pseudo schema to produce all of the Db DTOs, Database layer code, CRUD procs, UI DTOs with validation, and full unit tests. Probably close to 500 files.
I also use Perl a lot for data munging.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to "generate", but then you have to maintain the "generator". And then, do you update the "generated" code, or update the "meta" data that generated the code?
This scenario involves no intermediate steps, or "foreign" tools.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea to store the original source even if you use your extractors to build some indices.
I can see easy automated testing and verification if you adjust some of your algorithms or add new items of interest later.
|
|
|
|
|
englebart wrote: Good idea to store the original source even if you use your extractors to build some indices.
That is what I do. Mainly because I recognize that in terms of maintenance others are going to use that.
englebart wrote: I can see easy automated testing and verification if you adjust some of your algorithms or add new items of interest late
One of my first although not the first, significant work I did on this was to create a testing framework (this was before open source frameworks existed) and then created the tests also.
In another case the company accepted a contract to test a complex piece of hardware. I built a testing platform that consisted of two different ssh clients, and a third party tool to drive the management UI. Then the QA testers wrote human readable normal looking test cases in a Word document. I processed the Word document to produce the code that ran the platform.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
Not overly active on CP recently. I was in a state of flux as a bit of software I had written to make life eaiser for people was acting up in an odd way, after I had written the title I get a Teams call as I am writing the text of the question and totally botch it. Dave K & Richard M nicely pointed out that someone who was seeing what I was seeing had no chance. I fact I had read it the question when the Teams call was over and though 'don't post that you'll look like an idiot' clicked cancel and walked away, except cancel was submit. Ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Sorry ! (my oh my looked like a gimme codez question!)
Glenn
|
|
|
|
|
There there.
Put a dollar in the jar.
|
|
|
|
|
Even Homer nods...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
It's good that we know something of your work life.
|
|
|
|
|
Working with prototypes that have been passed as suitable for production (despite failing certification, someones bonus at risk?), insane ammounts of and fixing a broken microwave oven?
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 3/6
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩⬛🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 3/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟨⬜🟩🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 3/6
🟨⬜⬜🟨🟩
🟩🟨⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 4/6
⬜⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 3/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜
⬜🟨🟨🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 4/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜🟩🟩⬜⬜
🟨🟩🟩🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟩
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
⬜⬜🟩🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 3/6*
🟨🟨⬜⬜🟩
🟩🟩⬜🟩🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
You and I probably guessed the same second word
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 3/6*
⬛🟨⬛⬛🟩
🟩⬛⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 4/6
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟩
⬛⬛⬛⬛🟩
⬛🟩⬛⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 906 4/6
🟨🟨⬛⬛🟨
🟩🟩⬛🟨⬛
🟩🟩🟩⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Study done by a dog owner.
|
|
|
|
|
From CP newsletter.
Almost half the men surveyed think they could land a passenger plane. Experts disagree | CNN[^]
"So, if you’ve never even learned the basics of flying, your chances of successfully landing a passenger aircraft with air traffic control’s help are close to zero."
So I am guessing the article is claiming that if the crashing plane does not have fully certified pilot on board every one should just give up and die.
Also wonder about the article diverging into the following...
"For takeoff, the aircraft must build up speed until the wings"
Were they perhaps worried that a passenger would need to step in for an emergency takeoff? Because? Like the zombie apocalypse and everyone needs to escape from the horde running across the field?
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: fully certified pilot That's a very big step beyond "learned the basics of flying". There are loads of people out there who have flown a glider, or taken controls of a light aircraft for a few minutes, or have spent hours - or months - on a flight sim.
Whilst all of these are very different from landing a passenger aircraft, the principles are the same and at least there's a chance that the newbie pilot will have a grasp of terms like pitch, yaw, flaps, glide path etc. If the instructor on the ground can tell the pilot to "push the nose down a few degrees until you're on the glide path, and check your wings are level" that's a LOT simpler than explaining the basics.
There are plenty of well-documented cases where an "untrained" pilot has landed a small plane with the assistance of an instructor on the ground. Of course the "documentation" in cases where it's all gone horribly wrong is harder to come by, as it's a smoking heap in a field somewhere. There are almost no cases of completely untrained pilots landing larger commercial aircraft, because it's a very, very, very rare instance when both pilots are incapacitated and there's not even a partially qualified pilot on board.
|
|
|
|