|
It will become a cat-erpillar and takes revanche
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Is the car moving?
How does throwing a cat reverse its aging?
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I think you would be charged with a Felinony.
|
|
|
|
|
Road kill
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0
My goal in life is to have a psychiatric disorder named after me.
I'm currently unsupervised, I know it freaks me out too but the possibilities are endless.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I've discovered what's wrong with Java... Way too many frameworks, and way too many inter-dependencies and incompatibilities between them...
Currently updating a Java project that uses, in no particular order:
Jetty, Jasper, JBoss, Maven, GWT, GWTP, GXT, Guice, Gin, Guava, some database libraries and drivers, a few other utility frameworks, and a few proprietary frameworks...
Each one works with specific versions of others, and none of them seem to give a @#%*&# about backwards compatibility even when only moving up a minor version number. Upgrade one to support something in another, it breaks two more and gives an utterly useless runtime error. Packages (namespaces) change every version because none of them can decide where to put anything.
Really makes me appreciate Visual Studio more and more... C# just works. It just #(*%&# works.
Sigh... Back to messing with these pom files... Rant concluded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't agree more.
I look at some projects and they are just a mass of frameworks, patterns, injections etc
|
|
|
|
|
Except in .NET (At least in my experience), the framework does so much that you generally have only a handful of dependencies, many of which ONLY depend on the CLR...
In Java, it seems the JRE itself has just the basics, and everything has tons of third-party dependencies.
Keeps the dependency tree much simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. Log4Net and Json.NET are my common additions, but everything else is there already.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't use those either. I do logging my way  , and I have never had to interact with JSON.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: because you need nuget to manage it all.
One nuget to rule them all?
I find nuget to be rather evil. I originally thought, oh cool, a nice package manager, then realized the hell that is created by interdependencies between different versions. Nowadays, if I am going to use some package that is on NuGet, I go and find the actual source, make sure it builds to the .NET framework I'm using (4.5) and reference the DLL directly. I refuse to use the package manager.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I am perhaps out of touch with all the new tech and frameworks but I tend to come from the 'roll-it-yourself' school.
In practise this has meant that as long as I take care in writing the classes well I can usually make changes fairly quickly as opposed to the sometimes fugly fixes for 'off-the-shelf solutions'.
I realise that this will draw a lot of criticism but it has kept a company of 200+ people running on an ERP system, I have written, for over 2 years with no down time.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: I tend to come from the 'roll-it-yourself' school.
Me too. It does exactly what you need the way you need it to, nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, I have usually rolled my own frameworks, designed around the problems we were solving.
I admit I have borrowed Ideas from other frameworks, and payed attention to their failings.
Watched them live for quite a long time...
|
|
|
|
|
"Backward compatibility" is a Microsoft thing, and mostly a thing of the past.
End of story.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
But when there's no tooling or third-party libraries we complain too... 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
I don't; I'm a developer, I develop what I need.
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: what's wrong with Java... Way too many frameworks
I noticed that too. Definitely made me realize I needed to tread carefully if I were to do anything in Java.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
If it's any consolation, JavaScript is even worse in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but this is GWT... Which means it's both Java AND JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
---
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: If it's any consolation, JavaScript is even worse in that regard.
FTFY
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but it is the natural progression.
I saw this in the COMPONENT based world. VB had DLL hell.
In Delphi, I LOVED how loading my components was so easy, and integrated into the IDE.
20 years later, we have removed 90% of the components we used to have. We only buy ones with source.
And we are VERY VERY picky about adding new ones.
Because, you can't just upgrade your IDE, it breaks a lot. Then you have old projects that are suddenly compiled with a new compiler and components. And suddenly various components are using different Zip libraries that have to load... And it starts all over again.
And frameworks make it worse. We end up not updating the frameworks because of the amazing level of risks. And potentially in EVERY PROJECT, not just the one you are working on now, but an older one you have not touched in a while. (One of the key arguments FOR Testing based development, and ANOTHER argument for a project controlling what loads in the IDE).. Oh, it is so complicated. All of these tradeoffs...
|
|
|
|
|
I actually despair of this, sometimes.
Fine, so frameworks can save you a Hell of a lot of work, because you're reusing tested code (essentially, it can be the same as using "visual" anything, where all the pretty stuff is pre-made, ready for you to use), but all too often a framework is imported in place of writing no more than 20 lines of bespoke code that will do what is needed and no more.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
:nods head slowly:
The number of times I've seen jQuery included just to get the contents or value of a _single element_ is frightening. The required JS is often shorter than the link to the library, never mind the jQuery code itself. 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
