|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Two-thirds of it won't work properly,
Since when are you that optimist? I would say nine-tenths
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.
|
|
|
|
|
The latest version of the language development toolkit improves parallelism in Wasm and adds a sublanguage that aids machine learning Sorry, some things are beyond my ability to make funny and/or insightful
But feel free to provide something.
|
|
|
|
|
The days of big team consulting are over. Technology organizations are aligning their budgets to get projects done faster and more agilely. What your boss hears: "Small teams work. One is a small team, so must be best"
|
|
|
|
|
Given that, viewed from extensive past experience, a big team is essentially a small team with extra members who do little more than sow confusion and dissent, I find it hard to argue with the article.
Shame.
I'm in the mood for bitching about bad articles 
Sharkey, 6/10, must try harder
[edit]
I typed "sew", not "sow".
Wallace, 3/10, just forget it and go flip burgers
[/edit]
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
modified 26-Mar-20 3:18am.
|
|
|
|
|
Even if some members don't sow confusion and dissent, the members of a big team get in each other's way. So if something is too big to be done by a small team, having an application framework that allows them to work fairly independently is important.
modified 26-Mar-20 12:36pm.
|
|
|
|
|
TEAM in German = Toll Ein Anderer Macht's (translation: Nice, another guy will do it)
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.
|
|
|
|
|
So instead, we have a bunch of little teams on a big project that utterly fail to communicate.
Companies like SpaceX totally amaze me, as that has to be one heck of a big team, and they actually get rockets into space and OMG land the boosters back on earth.
[edit] And define "team" - are people in the supply chain part of the "team"? One could argue, yes. Is the customer part of the "team"? Again arguably yes. [/edit]
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: One is a small team, so must be best
Just don't show this study
Quote: Technology organizations are aligning their budgets to get projects done faster and more agilely
Isn't it what organisations are doing for the latest 2 decades?
But to be fair the idea of small teams really appeals to me. In a sense that each team has it's limited part of the scope. And such decomposition helps to reduce complexity.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. Interesting article.
|
|
|
|
|
Bohdan Stupak wrote: But to be fair the idea of small teams really appeals to me. In a sense that each team has it's limited part of the scope. And such decomposition helps to reduce complexity.
It also prevents them from knowing that they're making a dastardly weapon for Dr. Evil.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Only unless the management of the company is excited to announce that it has an exclusive contract with Dr. Evil.
It might sound really dumb. But that happened to me in one of the companies I was working for. It was the 3rd year of Russian-inspired conflict in the east of the country. And the CEO had a meeting to announce that the company signed contract with Russian military corporation Kalashnikov (I bet you've heard of it). CEO wanted us to be as excited about it as she was but you could really feel frustration floating the room back then.
|
|
|
|
|
Only the Russians would give a military supplies contract to a company they'd started aggressive action against 
If I were in a planning session for it, the first thing I'd ask is "How can we make it blow up in their faces?"
I used to have great fun with one of the Ukrainian guys I worked with, because his wife is Russian, which gave me plenty of material to work with. He was also the one who led me to believe that the Ukrainian for "Russians" is "mother-%$#@%$# Russians", because that's the only way he ever said it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
C# 7.0 introduced the concept of discards. Discards are intentionally unused, temporarily dummy variables that we don’t care about and don’t want to use. A throwaway idea?
I will admit I never heard of these before. Shame on me. (They still look awful, and I suspect I'll never use them, but YMMV)
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: I will admit I never heard of these before. Shame on me.
Don't worry... you are not alone in this one.
Something that just came to my mind:
"What is worst, ignorance or indifference? I don't know and I don't care"
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.
|
|
|
|
|
What the actual f*ck is the reason for declaring variables that are *intentionally* unused?
Any variables in my code that end up eventually being unused are *intentionally* deleted before I deliver the code.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
You took the words out of my mouth.
But the article gives an example of a function that updates multiple arguments. If you don't care about one of its results, you pass a "blank" value to that argument. This is interesting because it documents that the code doesn't care and potentially allows the compiler to generate code that would make the function more efficient in this situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: They still look awful, and I suspect I'll never use them, but YMMV
No idea what YMMV is but I wonder if you meant YOLO!!!!??
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
YOLO might work, as I have managers who might kill me if I used these too much.
YMMV == "your mileage may vary" (which really only works in three countries at the moment, but whatevs)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: "your mileage may vary" (which really only works in three countries at the moment, but whatevs)
A lot of people use "mileage" (or a translation that uses "mile" rather than "kilometre") anyway, because "kilometrage" sounds like a criminal offence.
"I got pretty bad kilometrage, but I was let off with a warning."
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
So do you say "kilometage" instead og "mileage"?
I would guess not, because the browser's spell checker went insane when I typed "kilometage".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
I say mileage (I'm English, we still do roads in miles).
The Dutch is often "kosten per mijl" ("kosten"="costs", and "mijl" is pronounced "mile" -- 'ij' is the ancient root of the letter 'y'), and I've only rarely heard "kosten per kilometer", but Italians say "chilometraggio" ("ch" before 'i' or 'e' is pronounced like a hard 'c', and 'g' or 'gg' before before 'i' or 'e' is a soft 'g').
I don't know what they use in Australia (there's a fair chance that they don't, either)(and the pronunciation is probably wrong) or Canada (but they're too nice to make a fuss about it).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Canadians say mileage (if English) or kilométrage (if French).
Fuel consumption is quoted in liters per 100 km, which is utterly bizarre to a dinosaur like me.
|
|
|
|
|
Spain = Kilometraje ("j" as in "h" for "hockey" but a bit stronger, "g" and "j" sound similar in many situations, only that rules say words end with "aje" not with "age")
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you considered the "philosophical" difference between "liters per 100 (or 10, or 1) km" and "miles per gallon"?
"We've got a task to do; it requires driving 650 km. How much fuel will that require? We multiply 650 km by the liters/km; then we know."
"We've got 17 gallons in the tank. Let's go out driving. How far can we go? Let's multiply the 17 gallons by the miles/gallon; then we know."
If you had at task to do that requires you to drive 400 miles, you can of course divide 400 miles by the miles/gallon to get the fuel required. If you've got 70 liters of fuel, you can see how far you can get by dividing by the liters/km. But division is harder to do than multiplication.
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the examples, I'm hit with an overwhelming feeling of "why bother?"
i.e. I feel that this will make a huge impression on my lifestyle.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
