|
As a Medievalist programmer, I use leeches to fix bugs.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that witches are the source of all bugs.
BURN THE WITCHES!
(Our own codewitch excepted)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
You call them witches we call them users 
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, bloodletting! THE classic debugging technique for over 3,000 years!
Now that's old school debugging.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get me started about how breakpoints *really* got their name.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: Now that's old school deinbugging.
FTFY 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
At one time, programming (well) was considered a craft. Then came the script kiddies.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: Then came the script kiddies.
And VB6 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: programming (well)
Long ago and even now titles often accrue by longevity. Only sometimes does that reflect above average skill.
But idiots have always existed.
|
|
|
|
|
At one time, we discussed authors: Martin; Date; Codd; Yourdon; DeMarco; The Gang of Four; ... We're now left with "Musk" and his plagiarism of "grok" and "groking".
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: At one time, we discussed authors:
Yes but at that time we also did it while standing around the water cooler wearing our ties. Perhaps after just returning from the technical book store with a new book. Before returning to our individual offices.
Presuming of course that the discussion was not on a college campus.
Not to mention of course that the number of books back then for programming was perhaps an order of magnitude smaller. I would say at a certain point at time it was at least two orders smaller. So much easier to discuss the same book.
I will note that I am currently reading a O'Reilly Microservices book. I just checked Amazon there are about 35 books with 'Microservices' in the title. Eight of those are from O'Reilly.
For comparison O'Reilly did not start publishing books until about 1984 and Coad's first book was in 1990.
One just needs to accept that things move fast.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: but it is quite old (though there are over 34,000 signees)
Googling suggests there are more than 27 million programmers.
Even presuming that all of those signers are in fact programmer I would still expect you can get more people to agree to and sign a petition about the best drink when programming.
|
|
|
|
|
Other than coffee or tea, I don't think programming improves with drinking; after a while.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I thought they had stopped producing Jolt Cola.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: The Software Craftsmanship movement
I heard of that years ago. I signed it. I wish it would say when I did.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I signed it.
Very cool. From reading your comments over the years I would think you are a craftsman (and not an Agilist). 
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I wish it would say when I did
Actually you can see when you signed it.
I searched for anyone named "paul" who signed and this is what it looks like[^].
What is the name you signed under? Just type it into the search box (have to scroll down a bit on the main page) and search and it'll show you when you signed.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: not an Agilist
I definitely do Agile (or maybe lower-case agile). I don't see those as mutually exclusive.
Not a dogmatist, I think those types are the bad ones, regardless of dogma.
Oh, I kept scrolling down and using the browser's find in page until I found myself.
3682 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Phoenix, AZ) 5/12/2009
Now to complain that they don't use an ISO 8601 format... 
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I definitely do Agile (or maybe lower-case agile).
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Not a dogmatist, I think those types are the bad ones, regardless of dogma.
Wow, I agree with you 100%!!
I like to take all the good parts and leave the useless dogmatic arguments behind.
Whatever helps me get to good, maintainable, robust code the best is my choice.
I think Tech books / Tech publishing industry has created more problems really because many things -- like Agile and Agile Scrum can be explained in a pamphlet ---- but you can't sell a pamphlet for $59.99
And, most people never finish those books anyways. It's a crazy system.
(And, I love to read tech books)
Meanwhile, real devs, sort out the chaff, use the good stuff and make things happen.
|
|
|
|
|
LOL, I once compared programmers to construction workers on this forum and people weren't having it  My point being that professional programmers have to make things work in a practical sense in the real world, as opposed to the sort of theoretical programming that computer scientists do.
So this is interesting to me. Is there a secret society behind this bent on world domination? How do I get into the inner circle, is there a special handshake? Or do you have to blink in binary or something?
|
|
|
|
|
StatementTerminator wrote: I once compared programmers to construction workers on this forum and people weren't having it
I like the analogy. I'm working on a thing right now that includes using DependencyInjection with Service and Repository Classes that requires mostly just copy/paste to adhere to the ARCHITECT'S Pattern and it is a whole lot like digging a hole that we will fill with gravel and pave over. 
Blinking in binary is a great idea but if we have a lot of meetings we will all probably get headaches. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: copy/paste
Which construction workers can't do. They have to hit the nail on the head right each and every time. And their version of undo isn't perfect either.
|
|
|
|
|
StatementTerminator wrote: compared programmers to construction workers
Software development is just a very different thing to everything, it just doesn't compare.
About the closest people come is to compare to a musical composer or someone writing cooking recipes, but that still misses the mark.
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't bothered to check that site yet, but it seems to me as if this is an offshoot of those "clean code" folks, for rather self-serving reasons....
|
|
|
|
|
... for example: a woman's age, a car mechanic's repair estimate, the president's weight.
(That last example might get me in trouble, but hey, seems I'm already in trouble here).
Thank you and good night.
|
|
|
|
|
One of my math professors had said that "all numbers are imaginary". For example, I can show you two oranges, or two cats, but I cannot show just "two". So, all the numbers we deal with, are in our head, mind.
We write it, of course, as 2, but that is just a representation of "two" in my written language. The same 2 is written as ೨ in my language Kannada, and as २ in Devanagari script. But none of them are the concept called "two"; the concept called "two" is imagined in my mind, it is imaginary. This was the logic of my professor.
Stated otherwise, I cannot see, hear, touch, smell or taste "two" or "three". None of the numbers is tangible in that sense.
The concept of "imaginary number i" takes that imagination abstraction to the next level.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
