The rigour of it all
They don't call it Software Engineering for nothing.
459 posts • joined 23 Jul 2007
They don't call it Software Engineering for nothing.
The most popular kind of cheese is baked-beans.
A RHAT joining a sinking ship
Almost every response by the 'no deal will be great' crowd is 'well, there will be a deal for that' e.g. nuclear medicines, aircraft etc. etc.
I do think that feasibility studies for things that are unaffordable is a giant scam and part of the general corruption in this country. That league tables don't show this country as being incredibly corrupt is indicative to me that the measures are meaningless. We are probably reasonably non-corrupt in the 'brown envelopes full of cash' sense but not in the 'doing favours for the right sort of people in the justified expectation that favours will be done for you because you're the right sort of person' sense.
See also the enormous trade in feasibility studies for transport schemes that are never going to happen.
No it's not, there's no frequencies available.
Yes, agree with this, though I haven't used any IDEs since VS in non-geological timescales anyway. I reckon I come across this issue about every working day though, I think use of smart pointers and the like make it more or less unavoidable.
What I want (and it could be there in the latest version, am still using 2015 but it has been missing for decades so I would be surprised) is a STEP INTO THE FUNCTION, NO I SAID THE ****ING FUNCTION, NO NOT ALL THE CONSTRUCTORS, SMART POINTERS ETC ETC CALLED FOR ALL THE PARAMETERS, THE FUNCTION button / keystroke in the debugger for C++.
Shouldn't that be Grindr hacking not grinder hacking?
I don't want an Android fork, I want a translucent blue impeccably designed iSpork
"Bollocks to Bozos"
The government and 52% of the population have come up with a much better way to encourage business to leave London. Not to Birmingham, though.
Stop over in Birmingham... quick trip to Sparkbrook for a balti surely? How could that compare with London?
But in the general case
expression1 = expression2 + expression3
expression1 += expression2
expression1 is textually the same as expression2
The second is better because you don't have to eyeball the code to make sure expression1 and expression2 are identical
Did I mean stoat-boat or was that a mistake?
Poe's Law applies to this one, I am still not sure myself if it is a parody or not
I like the idea of near shore. Prison ships just outside territorial waters.
If you are interested in how to program them (on emulators primarily obviously) I recommend this book
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N4DSRIZ/ Making Games for the Atari 2600 by Steven Hugg.
For a more general book about it there is Racing the Beam by Ian Bogost (who you may have heard of) and Nick Montford https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/racing-beam
It is somewhat academic in tone (I mention that not as a pejorative term, but to give an idea as whether it might be for you)
I remember someone thinking that when I said we would (re)develop something in MFC I meant 'MicroFocus COBOL'
My late (much older) brother had some sort of 'book of facts for boys' dating back to the early 50s. It has a section on camping which had a paragraph beginning 'When attending to the wants of nature...'.
It was only years later I worked out what the hell it was on about.
My favourite accidentally deleting things story, which I'm sure you will agree is the platonic ideal of a dull historic IT anecdote (I have probably told you all this one before, too)...
At some point in the 80s we were using both PCs and some strange things called Sages running CP/M 68K.
The Sages were configured with the hard disk partitioned into 2MB chunks (the limit) with
A = operating system and toold
B = source code
C / D / E etc. = customer data or more copies of the source code
P = floppy drive
(the idea being that the number of had disk partitions depended on the size of the hard disk but P was always the floppy)
So in summary
PC = A: floppy C: system
Sage = P: floppy A: system
Now, a moment's inattention on a Sage, you format the floppy FORMAT A: - bye bye OS and tools.
The other fun property of Sages was hard disks very averse to the computer being dropped.
Is there anything to his 'we can tunnel cheaper and quicker' stuff? How much money would that save anyway? Suppose you could magically tunnel between stations for essentially free, but not, obviously fit out the stations, build the escalators, find room for and build the surface parts of the station etc. what percentage of the cost of an underground system would this actually save? Not much I wouldn't have thought.
Just as well the government doesn't have to implement 100s of new processes / systems / procedures in a hurry in the next couple of years then.
You should watch this fascinating long interview about the MK14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awlqzippsSc
(and the life of its creator)
A fascinating titbit is that his original plan was to use octal so it could use a Sinclair calculator with its 7 segment displays as the UI (I may have slightly misremembered the detail, but definitely octal)
There is a book by Jerry Kaplan about his experiences as CEO of Go corporation, who tried to do a Pen operating system. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Startup-Silicon-Adventure-Jerry-Kaplan/dp/0140257314
It was very much the classic Silicon Valley start-up before they became fashionable (in that it tore through a ton of money and then tanked) and it is quite well written.
Anyway, at one point ***SPOILER*** they are given a choice by a big customer to go with HP or IBM and choose IBM. This inevitably causes the issues you would expect, but at one point IBM try to shaft Go and to get the customer to use, wait for it, Pen OS/2.
The term 'Pen OS/2' always makes me chuckle every time I remember it.
I think program for 'things wot run on computers' is more or less agreed on, though I do remember university exams saying 'linear programme'.
But what about dialog or dialogue? My view is that like program for things wot run on computers vs programme for things wot you watch it should be dialog as in 'having a dialogue about dialogs'.
Does the accidentally redefining 0 in a FORTRAN program count here? Because I genuinely did that in real life and spent a while puzzling over it.
Better to support hardware whose manufacturer does support Linux.
(Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends spend their time hacking Tesco Value Toasters etc. to run Linux. But).
I bought a very cheap Windows 8 tablet (not RT). It was baffling bad. Like someone had never seen a tablet, but had one explained badly to them when not really listening and then half-heartedly implemented it from that description whilst watching YouTube videos. Or something like that.
The level of group-think required to think this was remotely a good idea beggars all belief.
signed A. Morlock
Is this a cognitive backbone?
In the 90s we stayed in a B&B near there (and did have a drive up to what you could see IIRC). The proprietor was an ex-stonemason who had become allergic to chemicals he needed, and his wife was a teacher at the school http://ahistoryofrafsaxavord.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/haroldswick-school.html (now closed).
When we flew up there from Birmingham the flights were more expensive than ones to New York.
On holiday in New Mexico we were stopped at a check-point... it went something like this
'I'm sure you're American citizens'
'No, we're here on vacation, we're from England'
He looks confused.
'In that case can I see your....[pauses to think of word]'
'Yes, that's it!'
We hand them over
'Have a nice day'
'Thanks, and you'
and off we went
I have a question. Suppose I am completely uninterested in security as am I essentially using a PC for computation and can apply any security outside the PC, which is unconnected to the big, bad, scary internet, to what extent can I just say 'oh bugger it speculate all you wan't?'
a) on Windows?
b) on Linux (where presumably I can turn off retpolining in GCC)?
I am actually dubious of this, I think inability to write code well in high level languages because of over-fixation on low level details that don't matter' is about as common a failure mode of developers as 'writing tremendously inefficient code because of too limited understanding of what is actually going on'.
It's the Long Island ICT that drives you to drink.
The skills gap is the same as it always has been, of 18 year olds with 5 years experience in technologies that have been round for 3 years who will work 80 hour weeks for peanuts and not answer back.
Please stop making this irksome usage of 'cognitive' a thing. It is not going to become a thing and you are just embarrassing yourselves by this point.
everyone in the world without the defective custom IBM dictionary
A friend, sadly no-longer with us, had a nervous breakdown whilst doing his degree - as part of his rehabilitation he was given some work in the medical sciences research bit of the nearby hospital (some of you may know a city has the mental hospital adjacent to a medical research campus). He was a bright guy but unfortunately had a compulsion to set knobs to zero, which was unhelpful.
As an attempt to cure him of this a bit of fake equipment was rigged up with a large enticing dial on it [this was in the 70s which explains a lot], set so that when it was zeroed, an enormous capacitor would explode. Apparently he covered the 10 metres to the door in a world record time.
Decades ago we had someone move into our group who did PC software from one who did IBM midrange software, there was a certain amount of mutual incomprehension as the terms he used for everything were different (library for directory was particularly baffling IIRC)
I was trying to work this out... on the whole I concluded I didn't understand enough to know but if the compiler generates code that does speculative loads aren't you still screwed (although of course you can't blame the processor, just the compiler). See https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20150804-00/?p=91181
Fe fi fo faction
I smell the blood of a f****ing enormous class action
I wonder how well it does at working out C++ class hierarchies, spotting vtables, turning a bunch of functions back into methods etc. etc.
Am I alone in being irked and slightly nonplussed that IBM are using the word 'cognitive' for something completely different from what the word actually means, i.e. they are using it meaning 'our mish-mash of AI related technologies' ?
See the bit about 'Consult with trade union representatives or elected employee representatives - or with staff directly if there are none.' i.e. you get the staff to elect committees and consult with them.
Yes exactly, that was my point.
I rarely actually get angry about these things but the concept of a transport catapult was an absolute ****ing (can't remember if I am allowed to say ****ing here) disgrace if you recall for example that
a) it takes us decades to tentatively do the experiment of a tram-train for Rotherham when this is established technology in Germany. Why? Maybe Plank's constant is different in the UK for some reason.
b) in my lifetime we have failed to successfully link bits of Watford with other bits of Watford (can't find a good link but basically the faffing has lasted a lifetime, responsibility was pushed back to TfL and the mayor unsurprisingly thought there were better uses for the money than the ludicrously high sum to build one viaduct across a road)(you might well say that this wasn't a terribly sensible project even at non-ludicrous sums of money but in that case best not to waste millions with nothing to show for it)
c) in general as per Edinburgh things cost far more to do in this country than anyone else in Europe
And you probably could still run it if you wanted to. And it would be fast. But.
The thing I'm surprised no-one else has mentioned (or if they have I've missed it) is the distinction between Perl 4 and Perl 5 (to say nothing of Perl 6).
Where it all went wrong with the objects. What is the phrase from the Perl 5 camel book? 'An object is a reference to a blessed thingy?' Something like that.
When you find yourself writing something like this it is time to have a long hard look at your life choices.
I always felt that for the things awk could do it was better than Perl. Of course the main thing I could do was the sort of stuff you'd use 'find' or similar for, so with awk I would usually end up doing it as a multiple stage process. You could argue that having an awk script write a batch file you could eyeball before letting it loose on the file system was no bad thing.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018