|
Gittum wrote: I am puzzled here. If anything is published openly, is it not a dishonesty to hide it later???
Europe - the home of the EU, Swiss Bank Accounts and Fifa. Need I say more? 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. The real problem is that people care too much about other peoples' past. This doesn't fix it, it can't be fixed. But at least it gives you something to do about it, instead of just giving up on employment altogether and signing up for govt aid "disability: was in the news a decade ago in a mildly negative way".
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: "I feel lucky"
Well, do ya, punk?
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
We don't; but Google's marketing needs to convince us that they are the solution, in order to make the sale.
Any other open doors for me to kick in? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
We’re suspending the availability of Windows 10 builds briefly while we prepare for that, and the next build that we flight to you will be delivered using the production channels. The excitement is almost unbearable
Blurb to be read as I heard it - in a Margaret Atwood voice.
That's an epic beard in that ship room. I wonder if it was grown using playoff rules?
|
|
|
|
|
Project failure can be defined as one or a combination of cost overruns, late deliveries, poor quality, and/or developing a product that does not get used. "Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that was a well organized and thoughtful article.
However, I thought it was odd that they started talking about a QSM proprietary Productivity Index (PI), and I thought that's odd. What's QSM?
Then I reached the end and saw that both authors work for QSM.
So the problems they point out, seem to be accurate.
I am skeptical of any of the solutions they suggest.
|
|
|
|
|
I've rarely encountered the above reasons. The #1 reason why I see projects fail is very simple: unskilled, untrained, inexperienced programmers.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Number #2 rivalling the number #1:
Marc Clifton wrote: unskilled, untrained, inexperienced
managers.
You see, if you work in a place where you need to have the ok from the CEO to buy a pack of pens (price < 5€) and she asks you twice if it is really necessary or if you could work without them, well think what is getting software licences, test equipment, building prototypes... We're testing a 500.000 € machine out of thin air. And it won't fail only because our developers are skilled, trained, experienced, hardened and somewhat masochistic.
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
modified 14-Jul-15 5:44am.
|
|
|
|
|
den2k88 wrote: We're testing a 500.000 € machine
The CEO is right - the pencils for your writing machine are too expensive! 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Is software getting better or worse? Some say we are making software ever more bloated. Define better
|
|
|
|
|
Define worse
Decrease the belief in God, and you increase the numbers of those who wish to play at being God by being “society’s supervisors.” Such “supervisors” deny the existence of divine standards, but are very serious about imposing their own standards on society.-Neal A. Maxwell
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun /xml>
|
|
|
|
|
Most of what he says is just plain wrong:
Garbage collection, runtime typing, closures, and object inheritance all existed in some form 40 years ago.
40 years ago, I was programming BASIC on a PDP/11 with punch tape for storage.
IDEs: Okay. I suppose they’ve helped a little.
A little? Come on. Threaded debugging, breakpoints, variable inspection, all in a visual environment where what you're looking at is your code, not some obtuse command line interface? I think that's a lot, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Discover and stitch components together by what they mean, not their particular API. It will be mind blowing if they can get this to actually work.
There he has it right. And that's what HOPE (see sig) is about. The reality though is that it isn't that easy. I still write tons of imperative code because "stitching together by meaning" is actually a non-trivial problem -- think about how functional programming is a shift in how you think about programming. Programming by meaning is another huge mental shift.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Garbage collection
Garbage collection did exist 40 years ago ...
... FORTRAN punch cards having buggy code were indeed garbage - they need to be physically collected and disposed somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: HOPE (see sig)
Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
HOPP or Higher Order Programming Effort?
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: HOPP or Higher Order Programming Effort?
Actually, the E is Environment. Never actually realized the HOPP issue - thanks for pointing that out!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
GC was introduced by LISP by John McCarthy in 1959.
Object Inheritance was first (to my knowledge) introduced by Sketchpad, in 1963, as a language concept in Simula-67 introduced in 1967.
Closures wer fully implemented first by the PAL language in 1970.
All over 40 years ago.
Just because you were using BASIC on a PDP/11 with punch tape doesn't mean it didn't exist.
(I was busy playing with LEGO and hiding behind the sofa when Dr Who was on).
Smalltalk introduced most of the innovations in IDEs in 1980. Many aspects are still not available to the mainstream.
Those who cannot learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
There is actually a very good talk by Alan Kay (I think) on exactly this subject, where he points out that the majority of programmers are not aware who Douglas Englebart, Ivan Sutherland, John McCarthy, Kristen Nygard are, and many more. Imagine if most physicists could not name Newton and Einstein.
Programming is still in its idiocy infancy, and many of us need to grow up and learn its history so we can start improving on it instead of recreating it.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
modified 15-Jul-15 5:54am.
|
|
|
|
|
#define better
are you happy now?
Geek code v 3.12 {
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
}
|
|
|
|
|
Much. Thank you! 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
If you're of a certain age—too young for Doonesbury, too old for Rugrats—then chances are your first taste of satirical cartooning came from Bloom County. The most important news of the day
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome news.
Posted from my Banana 3000 computer.
|
|
|
|
|
The Truck Factor designates the minimal number of developers that have to be hit by a truck (or quit) before a project is incapacitated. CP Newsletter has a moped factor of 1
|
|
|
|
|
They have the same for programme managers - the Chicxulub[^] factor. I've been on projects where that number has topped double digits...
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but there you don't need the meteor/asteroid to break the project, you want the meteor/asteroid to strike.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
