|
If you REALLY were an engineer your motto would be:
Don't try it, don't do it, just plan it and plan it and plan it and plan it, etc....
|
|
|
|
|
-Which is what I believe I do. I would consider that to be the ultimate of being realistic; I know that someone, somewhere, sometime, is going to pass in a NULL pointer to a function that requires a "real" one. So, I put a NULL-check at the start of the function.
I hope for the best; in that I do not get passed a NULL pointer, but I plan for the worst; that some developer that is not paying attention to his/her own variables and passes me a NULL pointer.
(This may also be considered the same thing as "Trust, but Verify".)
Peace!
-=- James (Sonork:100.21837)
[Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!]
[Get Delete FXP Files Now!]
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I guess this sentiment is not too different from what I posted below.
Java: Write once, run anywhere, test everywhere!
|
|
|
|
|
James R. Twine wrote:
So, I put a NULL-check at the start of the function.
its called as the range check, and its a specification for delevoping software in my company (ppl are there to varify this,its called quality check)
Any ways, a program function is like any another mathmatical function with input parameter and output result. For the function to function properly the input should be within the specified range. The programming function need to varify the inputs before it does some processing on it.
I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill - Dire Straits
|
|
|
|
|
Mr.Prakash wrote:
its called as the range check, and its a specification for delevoping software in my company
Yes, and it is part of my coding standard as well (these are Release mode checks, too, not just Debug _ASSERTE(...)s).
My point was that I consider myself neither an optimist nor a pessimist. Experience dictates that the potential for something to go wrong is almost always there. I beleive it is far better to handle it ahead of time so that you can (almost) never be blamed for something crashing. It also avoids the back-and-forth laying-blame argument of:
"Why did you pass in a NULL?!?"
"Why can't you handle being passed in a NULL?!?"
If delete can handle being passed a NULL, so should I. 
Peace!
-=- James (Sonork:100.21837)
[Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!]
[Get Delete FXP Files Now!]
|
|
|
|
|
The problem, in general life, is that all too often this realistic-optimist crosses the line into pessimism, or cynicism. They go from "Someone may pass a NULL so let's cover that base up front" to "Some VB schmuck too thick to programme will pass a NULL so *grumble* *grumble* I, God like realist, have to take into account their stupidity."
I think it is an attitude thing, how two different people approach the same situation. One with optimisim the other with cynicism.
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
South Africa
Ian Darling wrote:
"and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python."
Crikey! ain't life grand?
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. But if both produce the same result, meaning the NULL check gets put in and the overal quality and/or robustness of the code improves as a result, who cares what the attitude is? If more coders had either atttitude, we would be experiencing much less Access Violation exceptions in the software we use daily! 
(It is like incorrectly comparing/equating face time with productivity; no one should care how much they see my face as long as my tasks get done ahead of time or on time and meet or exceed the quality standards set forth. I do not care if the coder is optimistic, pissed, jaded, whatever -- as long as he/she produces high quality code, that is all that matters!)
It is the ones that are neither too optimistic, or just do not care, that scare me when they get in front of a compiler.
Peace!
-=- James (Sonork:100.21837)
[Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!]
[Get Delete FXP Files Now!]
|
|
|
|
|
If you work in a team or have to communicate with other humans in anyway, then attitude is important
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
South Africa
Ian Darling wrote:
"and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python."
Crikey! ain't life grand?
|
|
|
|
|
Hogwash! We all get along fine once everyone starts doing what I say! :P 
Seriously, you have a point there -- however I was specifically referring to an attitude regarding what is going to happen to/with the code that one writes, not how one deals with others...
Peace!
-=- James
Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!
Articles -- Products: Delete FXP Files & Check Favorites
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like the philosophy I try for: "Optimist by attitude, pessimist by policy".
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Here, hear!
Peace!
-=- James (Sonork:100.21837)
[Tip for SUV winter driving survival: "Professional Driver on Closed Course" does not mean "your Dumb Ass on a Public Road"!]
[Try Delete FXP Files Now!]
|
|
|
|
|
This is a prime example of why good documentation is needed.
Back in the DOS days, before windows, I wrote a complete UI (that worked in graphics and text mode). It had one overriding theme, every thing was checked; if it failed, it happen before the UI function call was made. If it happen after, then resources where exhausted (memory or disk space).
What is with the "good documentation" comment?
Well, some-times speed is more important than parameter checking (such as memset)! If every function checked it's parameters' then we would be producing redundant code. Therefor, if a function that you are calling already does parameter checking then why check before calling that function.
I automatically want to check each and every parameter passed to every function that I write.
"Know when to hold them; Know when to fold them; Know when to walk away"
INTP
|
|
|
|
|
A pessimist sees the glass as half-empty.
An optimist sees the glass as half-full.
An engineer sees the glass as incorrectly sized for the volume of water.
|
|
|
|
|
An oldie, but a goodie.
"Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
|
|
|
|
|
And yet another oldie:
The optimist believes we live in the best possible world.
The pessimist fears he's right.
|
|
|
|
|
If I put aside reality then I would be a pessimist, because every thing is relative to your own point of view. The best possible world depends on who's eye's you are looking through.
INTP
|
|
|
|
|
:-DOk you made me smile. Thanks!
INTP
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Pratchett says it best:
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty
An optimist sees the glass as half full
But the world belongs to they that say - hey this isn't my glass, mine was bigger and full - who's been pinching my beer?!
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure I understand why everyone here seems to think "Realist" is very close to "pessimist". I take "realist" to mean somebody wou could be optimistic, but realizes things won't work out magically by themselves. A realist is an optimist who realizes that it takes work to make things work out. Example, your code won't magically be bug free, but if you test it, carefully debug that memory leak, etc., you probably will have a good product.
"Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
|
|
|
|
|
The reason is that most people who are pessimistic call themselves realist because they predict accurately the pitfalls of developing. This is also called the law of self fulfilling prophecies. If you think it will go wrong then it most likely will go wrong.
An optimist is, IMO, someone who realises it might go wrong, but sees the solutions to fixing it quickly or far enough ahead of time that it doesn't go wrong.
Which ever way you lean, one thing is for certain. The same stuff happens to us all. It is what you do with that stuff that makes the difference.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar
The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September
Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
|
|
|
|
|
Optimist: I am good and when I am finish writing the code it will not break.
Realist: I am good and I will (try) to check all possible pitfalls, but the there is always the possiblity the code will break (not if I can prevent it).
Pessimist: The code will break. Know matter what I do to prevent it, it will eventual break.
More definitions:
Optimist: I will not break;
Realist: It might break, but it is highly unlikely.
Pessimist: It will break, sooner or latter.
INTP
|
|
|
|
|
:-DI agree 100%. I am a realist! In most cases I expect it to work, but when it breaks I am not surprised. I used to say that is not possible, then reality hit! Even if I am possitive there is nothing wrong with the code, I check it anyway.
"To assume makes an ass out of u and me"
INTP
|
|
|
|
|
I knew it was not going to work, they tried to make it work, but it didnt work.
so am i pessimistic or realisitic???
I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill - Dire Straits
|
|
|
|
|
Realistic if you realised this and then became part of the solution
Pessimistic if you sat back and shook your head
Look at the world about you and trust to your own convictions. - Ansel Adams
Meg's World - Blog
Photography
|
|
|
|
|
Megan Forbes wrote:
Pessimistic if you sat back and shook your head
then i am pessimistic, coz i sat back and did not become part of the solution(there was no solution) coz i dont fight a loosing battle.
I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill - Dire Straits
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
