|
Surely, that can only be used on a data bus??? 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Not without bidirectional bus drivers[^]! Be a little bit more inclusive!
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's for water cooled computers.
|
|
|
|
|
On a ship you'd have Universal Seat Belt Sea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of people are sad about this but I'm not. By my reckoning he lived a blessed life, lived to an old age, and died peacefully. We should all be so lucky.
I'm not saying he doesn't deserve people to mourn him. I'm sure his family does, and I'm sorry for them, but he was 72 and he died in his sleep. That's not a bad end to a good run. Just my $0.02.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: We should all be so lucky.
More than true!
|
|
|
|
|
Can we all agree that the death of Ron Popeil is really, really sad, and if you call in the next 30 minutes, we will ship you not one, not two, but three boxes of tissues at a low cost of 5 paiements of $19.99 and money back garanteeeee.
He also lived his life to its fullest.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the news about Ron, too. very sad indeed. most of us here in the States (not sure about Europe) grew up with this guy on our TVs.
"set it, and forget it"
|
|
|
|
|
72 sounds old.. until you are 71.
>64
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds young if you are 82
Repo Man
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it is all relative. I am well past it as well. My wife's aunt passed away last year at 96. She used to talk about living to be 90. When she hit 89, I told her she was going to have to move the target.
>64
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh sure - he died in his sleep...
What about his passengers?
(In my world it’s never too soon!)
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Damn. 
"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
|
|
|
|
|
ZZTop used to play at the Warehouse in New Orleans before they got "Big".
One of my biggest regrets is that I never went to see them.
Repo Man
|
|
|
|
|
New Orleans? Did you spell Warehouse correctly?
|
|
|
|
|
As I am starting my new job at EA, working on the Frostbite Editor, which is easily a 1000 man years job if I were to hazard guess... The codebase is very large!
And the parts I am working on are very messy... Trying to study one little bit of functionality... the code ping pong between many different classes which all work on the same data at the same time, it's very challenging to grasping it all. One might call it some sort of spaghetti code.
Now.. it might seems inevitable on large project with large team... But, at the risk of being blind folded by fanboyism, I think Microsoft.NET API code looks quite neat and simple. And this is a large project API too, 20 years in the making! By a large corporation!
So.. how did they do it? How does one push back against the growing complexity?
|
|
|
|
|
Regular review, and long design cycles. Lots of dogfooding by other developers. All of which is expensive.
Also, actually having a documentation and technical writing team working *with* the development team helps both parties make better stuff.
And then in terms of implementation I think they had an eye toward creating a "reference implementation" from the jump so there was some feeling that your code was going to be looked over by the public to keep people honest.
This is all just feels and vibes I got working from working on .NET and Visual Studio teams at Microsoft at points, nothing concrete.
But I will say this: Microsoft threw a ton of money at implementing the .NET BCL precisely because it was public facing. I don't know how public facing and broadly distributed the Frostbite editor source code is, but I do know EA is a big company and *can* produce clean code if they want to. It just costs more in terms of time (and thus money) - and trust me when I say that it's a hassle to have to code to standards that such necessarily requires - as well it should be since it's almost always harder to do the Right Thing(TM)
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you nailed it.
It's possible, but it must be a real additional effort (as in a lot more time and money).
I guess I will have to suck it up, and contribute as much as I could to reduce complexity when I can... 
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe look at it this way? there's a sort of knack to this sort of forensic(ish) code analysis and it's valuable as all heck. This is an opportunity to get some practice at it and hone the ability.
Plus I've found that when I'm looking at Other People's Code(TM) it doesn't click until I understand their thought process. Once I do, I can get through code that would curl your hair.
My point is, you'll get through this mess, and be better for it.
Also, I'd add - I wouldn't try too hard to kill complexity - not that this isn't valuable. It's just that if you have to make the choice, there's more value in being able to continue the code using the model you were handed, if you can. Otherwise you're looking at a rewrite sooner than you otherwise would. Just my experience.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Writing good code is a bloody pain. By which I mean that it is easy to understand what it wants to achieve, easy to find stuff where you expect it to be, and relatively easy to expand. No matter which pattern I use I always end up with a mess. 
Like with MVVM pattern, which seems to me to be only a pattern for splitting up the GUI in separate code snippets. It does that job very well, but that's about all you get from that. I have yet to find a pattern that helps me split up code into sections so that I don't have to revisit/reorganize at a later stage. Any thoughts or tips?
|
|
|
|
|
In C#/.NET I've found the use of partial classes to be fantastic for that.
For example, I'll have
MyList.IEnumerable.cs
MyList.ICollection.cs
MyList.IList.cs
And each file implements the named interface.
In C++ your options are ... messier. There's no way to split code up in C++ that I know of that doesn't add to complexity.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Don't C++ allow implementation of multiple abstract classes?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
