|
The problem with that is the esp-idf has a layer already for SD over SPI so you never touch the SPI directly.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: The problem with that is the esp-idf has a layer already for SD over SPI so you never touch the SPI directly.
I thought maybe you were going lower level. I like to be up here on this level where I don't know about the little things going on. 
Sorry it wasn't more help. 
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to be higher level. Unfortunately I am trying to interface with an RA8875 without using the Arduino framework. That means rolling my own graphics driver for it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
no, well maybe - it's a good reference of sdk "components" which there are source for so maybe if i dig through the source for the components those examples are written for i can find something.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: This is maybe the worst part of coding - when I'm swimming out past the markers into deep water and there's nobody left to take direction from.
I'd swim out and help you, but I'm paddling in the surf on the other side of the island. By the time I got to where you already are, you'll have figured it out and moved much further onwards.
|
|
|
|
|
You've *already* got it figured out, because you're enjoying sandy beaches and I'm looking at getting eaten by a shark. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
For those who tried three it ain't.
You launched the subject 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been a developer now for almost 40 years, and over those years I have seen several products that was supposed to be a no-code solution. The last fiasco was BizTalk. Supposed to allow non-programmers and analysts create applications. The real truth was that developers had to come in to make this white elephant work by creating, of all things, 'functoids'. Little C# diddies to overcome what could not be done with the so-called no-coding. One of the projects cost over a million dollars from an off-shore company, then required a band of 5-6 .NET developers to try to save it. That failed, and ended up costing about 2 million. The project was scrapped.
Interestingly, I looked into some of the Microsoft modules. I found one of them contained about 100 Microsoft GOTO statements! So much for Microsoft standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, it will all be ok this time as the no-code stuff will be AI powered and it will know exactly what people want to do...
|
|
|
|
|
I suspect that if that does come to fruition, there will be a lot of hollering into mics. And when they reach a prompt telling AI what to do, and it doesn't do it, perhaps there will AI functoids as well. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
I have read that and similar remarks many times. They never mention the fact that for AI to really do its thing the user(s) must first tell it what they want and that's where the problem lies. That problem is so severe that I am pessimistic about AI-driven no-code solutions ever succeeding.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Precisely. The problem would just shift from writing code that does exactly what the customer wants to writing specifications that describe exactly what the customer wants. I doubt the second is any easier than the first. Assuming that the AI was good at understanding natural language, the draft of the specification would be followed by endless, tedious questions like, "Do you mean this here?" and "What should be done if so-and-so happens?" It might well be faster to just WTFC (write the code). 
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. There will always be work for people with our skills. ![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Theoretically, the specification part is supposed to be happening now but we all know how well that's going.
I had a customer (a large company with two-letter acronym name) tell me once, "I won't know what I want until I see it" which was a direct violation of their own project management guidelines which required approval before any work or procurement began. They were easily the worst customer I have ever had and to this day I refuse to buy any of their products.
My attitude toward them was also shaped by being required to use what is the absolutely worst application framework I have ever had the misfortune of using or even reading about. Apparently it was some guy's master's thesis and that's what it looked like - something from academia that should have never have left it. It was a big house-of-cards state machine library where state transitions were performed by throwing an exception. I would have to work really, really hard to think of a more idiotic design.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: I found one of them contained about 100 Microsoft GOTO statements!
Was that hand-written code, or decompiled/auto-generated code?
Many sensible high-level patterns get compiled into a mess of goto statements for the low-level code. For example, try decompiling a switch block.
And that's without looking at the native assembly/machine code, where jmp and its variants rule the roost.
You generally don't want goto to appear in the code you need to maintain. But in generated code which isn't meant for human consumption, it's not a problem.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Auto-generated by MS, and it was high level C# code. Do as I say, not as I do syndrome.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: Auto-generated
So as I said, no need for a human to look at it, let alone maintain it. No need to make that code look nice for a human, so long as it works correctly and runs reasonably efficiently.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Well I hope this AI of yours is also a mind reader.
|
|
|
|
|
Not an AI; the computer that runs the code. 
Code that needs to be maintained by humans needs to be written for humans. That includes using higher-level constructs and avoiding things like goto to make it simpler for the human to understand.
Compiled or auto-generated code doesn't have those requirements. It simply needs to be executed by the computer. At the bare-metal level, that involves lots of jmp-type instructions, which are the moral equivalent of goto.
If compiled or auto-generated code uses goto rather than a more elegant construct, it's not a problem; it's simply closer to what the computer will be doing.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Made my day. The reason they use straight lines in those diagrams is so that they can also call it no-spaghetti code!
|
|
|
|
|
Member 14840496 wrote: BizTalk. Supposed to allow non-programmers and analysts create applications.
 Not sure who told you that. BizTalk is incredibly powerful and complex and was never (as far as I know) meant to be used by non programmers. It has been 10 years since I used it so maybe that has changed, but NO!, it is not meant for any kind of beginner at all. It's incredibly complex.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the in-house-developed rule-based "no code" system I used at one employer (about ten years ago) was developed in VB.net, sooo... 
These things -- including off-the-shelf ETL systems, such as SSIS -- are not intended for use by large enterprises with complex needs and large numbers of highly-skilled developers.
They always fall down when the needs are beyond the current capabilities of the system and "someone" has to develop a new module/rule/functoid.
The target market is small shops with simpler needs and no ability to hire highly-skilled developers.
A business with needs beyond that will always do better by hiring/contracting developers to implement a custom application to do the work.
I'm sure things go like this...
Client: We can do A, B, and C just fine, but we need something which will help us with X, Y, and Z.
Consultant: Absolutely, we can do that.
Six months later...
Consultant: Here you go.
Client: But that does only A, B, and C, which we can do ourselves already. It does nothing for X, Y, and Z, which is what we hired you to do.
Consultant: Well, we had to address the low-hanging fruit first.
|
|
|
|
|
You are absolutely correct. But some execs think they can cut costs using no-code, only to find out...woops.
Any employee/consultant should point out to supv., mgrs., etc. the risks, and come with a warning label....'CAUTION: USE OF THIS TOOL MAY CAUSE ENHANCEMENT HEADACHES. PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK'. Most of the time, even with fully developed apps., users start the BTW we would like....A, B, and C; which may be out of reach of a no-code solution; especially, as you said, in larger companies.
The other issue is, I have never seen a no-code solution stand the test of time, and that includes BizTalk. I will not count SSIS because it is not a UI RAD development environment.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
NOT! 
