ok what are the rules
-
Shog9 wrote:
i'm baking bread right now; somehow, that's more satisfying today ).
Well, at least the bread isn't baking itself! But how about that dog analogy? Why don't people use, say, C# to program their dogs? Why do they always just go for the thing they know best?
The Grand Negus wrote:
Why don't people use, say, C# to program their dogs? Why do they always just go for the thing they know best?
Most people i know don't really bother programming their dogs at all. As a result, their dogs are not particularly well-behaved. The few i know whose dogs actually listen to them appear to know quite a lot about dogs in general, and their dogs in particular, and spoken commands make up only a small portion of how they communicate (posture, eye contact, etc. make up the rest. As an aside, i've been told that my hat is offensive to dogs... hides my eyes or something).
---- I just want you to be happy; That's my only little wish...
-
- Get a grip on the logic of what you are trying to accomplish before you start. ie. Understand exactly what it is you are trying to accomplish
- Use the right tool for the job. Ignore anyone who says you *must* use such-and-such a tool or technique.
- Learn the concepts of programming. Memory management, design patterns, organising your code into the correct peices (objects, procedures, files, namespaces)
- Understand the concepts of the technology you are using. Object oriented, web based, crazy anonymous functions. Learn the tools.
- Write pretty code. Forcing yourself to write good looking code will force you to take a look at the structure, the comments, the way it's broken up, and as a consequence it will be easier for someone else to read and check
- Write comments in code. Relevant comments. Lots of useful, relevant comments.
- Learn to test and debug
- Learn how to rip chunks out of your code and replace it as the specs change. And they will change. Never, ever believe that there is such a thing as a final spec sheet.
- Keep learning.
- Be good to your Mother.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
5. Write pretty code. Forcing yourself to write good looking code will force you to take a look at the structure, the comments, the way it's broken up, and as a consequence it will be easier for someone else to read and check
Right on! I am amazed by the seeming vast majority of so-called "software engineers" who don't understand the importance of this. :mad:
Matt Gerrans
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
5. Write pretty code. Forcing yourself to write good looking code will force you to take a look at the structure, the comments, the way it's broken up, and as a consequence it will be easier for someone else to read and check
Right on! I am amazed by the seeming vast majority of so-called "software engineers" who don't understand the importance of this. :mad:
Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
I am amazed by the seeming vast majority of so-called "software engineers" who don't understand the importance of this.
Could it be that management or bosses pressure them away from writing pretty code?
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
In my experience (some maths at University before I switched to computers) this isn't the case: the English spells out a vague high level description of the problem and highlights points of interest, cites references and such. The actual body of the proof is in symbolic notation. In mathematics this is almost always the case.
You've got to be misunderstanding what I mean by framework. Let's try a different example. In what language are all the articles on this site written? C? C++? C#? VB? No! They're all written in English with examples written in these sub-languages. Back to the other example. My calculus book is written in English. It is not a German calculus book, it is an English calculus book, though it probably contains the same or similar formulae. The "framework" is English: the title, the preface, the chapter headings, the introductions, the explanations of the formulae, the problem statements, etc.
The original example was mathematical proofs which are – for the most part – symbolic. While your calculus book will have lots of English text the real guts (such as the chain rule, the product rule and the proofs) will be symbolic. Not to diminish English as it plays an important, but no mathematician wants to do his math in English. Take algebra for example: this is a set of rules which allows one to mechanically manipulate a symbolic equation to produce another. An example is the distributive law which stated symbolically looks something like this: a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c This means if I have: 6*107 I can use this rule as follows: 6*107 = 6*(100+7) = 6*100+6*7 = 600+42 = 642 Such rules can be stated in English but doing so is of little help.
Steve
-
Okay. Send me a version in some other language that you think is good - and hopefully short - and we'll get you the Plain English equivalent.
It is thoroughly described by wikipedia[^] and you can find plenty of implementations with Google, for example this Python library[^] contains an example. More to the point, why don't you add your Plain English implementations (and stats) to The Great Win32 Computer Language Shootout[^]? Or at least, if the travelling salesman problem seems like too much work, there are several easier choices at this site that you could use and whose solutions should be small enough to post in this forum.
Matt Gerrans
-
this is my second job (3 month passed) my first job (fox pro for accounting solution or can say immediate reports no structure for code or any thing else no training instead i had to go to client location from the first day i work from there only no previous experience of fox pro they give me one program which was used to calculate interest and they give me source code yes pc given to me was better so i had one day to learn fox pro basics and i did that of course not whole but the basic things required for me to work there thanks to msdn and internet connection ) before joining my first job i did a .net course (3 months). My .net teacher refer me to my current job i joined this job (my salary was hiked almost 5 times and i got a team (one more student of sir) to work with again we got no training however it took a bit longer to understand few needed concepts of directx and webcam yes articles from code project were the only source of info i could had that time (no books of directx with c# available that time in EE edition and i had not enough money to buy the costlier books so i will say thanks a lot CP now the questions of Joel 1. Do you use source control? i did not know this thing before so i will implement it ASAP 2. Can you make a build in one step? Yes as we are two we work together 3. Do you make daily builds? no i didn't 4. Do you have a bug database? i will make it ASAP (today itself) 5. Do you fix bugs before writing new code? well most i fix them after writing the code cause if i am implementing some thing new i don't know that it will work or not after my basic idea starts to work then i take some free time and think throughly to find bugs before implementing any further 6. Do you have an up-to-date schedule? yes we complete one thing then take target for the next one and accomplishes it on time however i have to give many sleepless nights 7. Do you have a spec? yes i build the outer line on the day one but don't have any fine specs 8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions? no not at office and we have to complete our first project before 30th so i am working from my home 9. Do you use the best tools money can buy? no this is the part we lag most we have two computers at office one we work upon is p4 1.2 ghz with 256 mb ram (i wonders how .Net is running on it with XP and directx SDK loaded) second computer is worse we cant use it for programming / testing it is only used for browsing (p3 .5 ghz 256 mb ram) we don`t have those dual monitors or lcd e
Amar Chaudhary wrote:
1. Do you use source control? i did not know this thing before so i will implement it ASAP
Subversion Server (SVN) is free and works very well. http://subversion.tigris.org/[^] But before you do anything read through this online book. The information here is absolutely necessary to understand how it all works. Version Control with Subversion[^] Here is the link to the TortoiseSVN project (the local client, used to connect to the Subversion Server). http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/[^] If you’re looking for a local repository as in it you only have one computer, TortoiseSVN will suffice for both client and server. Tortoise has a chm file with fairly detailed instruction on its usage (including setting it up as client and server). If you get stuck I would be happy to try and help. Good luck, hope this helps.
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
-
there were few discussions about rules for programming few days ago i am working in a company which is newly started and only two programmers there and no one to guide except CP so what are the rules which you follow and think i should also follow :):)
I have an oversimplified rule that I use. Keep what works for you and your team and throw the rest out. I apply this to time management, documentation, specifications, error reporting, development methodologies, etc, etc. Like I said, it's very simple but I also helps keep me from wasting time.
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long, Time Enough For Love
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Because it's free advertising in the lounge, or did you forget already? Who stands to get paid if he actually does decide to use PEP?
It depends, as you should know. If he buys it to use as is, we get $100. But where's the hypocrisy in that? We've never hidden the fact that our product is for sale. And if he decides to develop on top of it, he'll get a copy to work with for free and then he'll sell his product - in that case, he'll benefit financially as well. Finally, if he becomes a full-fledged Omsosian living and working together with us, drinking milk from the same cows and eating corn from the same fields, I really don't think the question applies - except that, again, I see no hypocrisy there.
The Grand Negus wrote:
But where's the hypocrisy in that?
Who said anything about being a hypocrite? It's still exploiting the lounge however.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
How about this argument. We wrote an exceptionally efficient native-code-generating compiler/linker with interface, file manager, dumper, text editor, and wysiwyg page editor using exclusively procedural code and not once during the development did the project suffer from disorganization, unreliability, or unnatural expression and not once during the development were we ever even tempted to think in an object-oriented paradigm. If that doesn't do it for you, I don't think a handful of posts here will help.
You counter Jeremy with this argument, can't you accept his challenge?
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
PaulC1972 wrote:
You counter Jeremy with this argument, can't you accept his challenge?
Yeah you beat me to it. It's obvious he can't.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I challenge you to flex your brain power and show all of us real (not abstract) reasons as to why you think this is the case. And I even double challenge you to do without talking about PEP. Keep in mind. C is my favorite language, and I believe procedural code can be very organized. But, I also believe OOP has many merits and don't hesitate to use it if the project calls for it. So, you have your challenge. Should you take it or leave us up to you, but since you act like an expert in this field I'd wager this would be like falling off a log. Remember, abstract ideas don't count, those are too easily manipulated to serve an agenda.
How about this argument. We wrote an exceptionally efficient native-code-generating compiler/linker with interface, file manager, dumper, text editor, and wysiwyg page editor using exclusively procedural code and not once during the development did the project suffer from disorganization, unreliability, or unnatural expression and not once during the development were we ever even tempted to think in an object-oriented paradigm. If that doesn't do it for you, I don't think a handful of posts here will help. When I first started teaching database design many years ago, I wrote into my materials an appendix explaining why the hierarchical and network approaches to database management were less desirable. I soon found, however, that once students mastered the simple and obvious relational approach taught in the course, the appendix ceased to be of interest; so I delete it. I think the same thing applies here. If you have a particular example where you think object-oriented thinking works better than a procedural approach, however, I'll be happy to dissect it.
The Grand Negus wrote:
How about this argument. We wrote an exceptionally efficient native-code-generating compiler/linker with interface, file manager, dumper, text editor, and wysiwyg page editor using exclusively procedural code and not once during the development did the project suffer from disorganization, unreliability, or unnatural expression and not once during the development were we ever even tempted to think in an object-oriented paradigm. If that doesn't do it for you, I don't think a handful of posts here will help.
Won't fly, for one it's abstract. For two, you can do the same thing with an OOP paradigm.
The Grand Negus wrote:
When I first started teaching database design many years ago, I wrote into my materials an appendix explaining why the hierarchical and network approaches to database management were less desirable. I soon found, however, that once students mastered the simple and obvious relational approach taught in the course, the appendix ceased to be of interest; so I delete it. I think the same thing applies here.
We're not talking DBs here. Not to mention, DBMSs use a relational flat scheme, so this is apples to oranges.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If you have a particular example where you think object-oriented thinking works better than a procedural approach, however, I'll be happy to dissect it.
I'd be happy to, but only after you stop avoiding my challenge. Don't pull the "you first" card. I challenged you, not the other way around. If you can't accept that then you obviously don't know enough to defend your stance or otherwise you would have. And for the second time, leave the abstractions out of it. I'm sure someone with your superior intellect can understand this.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
Amar Chaudhary wrote:
i did program in foxpro using procedural approach and i know that i missed oop that time so much yes i build fairly complex programs using it but if had support of oop then it would take much less time so my point is 1) oop saves time 2) easy to debug 3) reduces complexity 4) make code easily understandable 5) and in the process of evolution oop is winning 6) and why is that more people are using oop concepts 7) when every thing is an object how you can escape oop and the big thing do you know why dinosaurs extinct
If your birthdate here is correct, you are about half my age. Which means I remember things - lived through things - that you haven't. I remember, for example, when General Motors was the clear winner in the evolution of the automobile industry, and the thought of a Japanese car on American highways was nothing but a joke. More to the point, however, I remember when the hierarchical/network approach to database was almost universally accepted as the best. In the "process of evolution", as you call it, this approach was not only winning, but had virtually won; it was backed by IBM and every other major player at the time and no one else stood a chance. But then along came Dr. Codd with a five-page paper describing the "spartan simplicity" of his relational approach, and things changed. But not right away. I quote the dedication found in his final book, written some 25 years later: "To fellow pilots and aircrew in the Royal Air Force during World War II and the dons at Oxford. These people were the source of my determination to fight for what I believed was right during the ten or more years in which government, industry, and commerce were strongly opposed to the relational approach to database management." I suspect I'll be writing a similar dedication to my final work 25 years from now. Now regarding the dinosaurs, let me be blunt. Clearly, you're not old enough, nor have you studied enough, to give me an accurate history of trends and events in data processing just 50 years past. So don't go pretending you know what happened thousands of years ago. For all you know, the dinosaurs might have been destroyed in a cataclysmic flood, and evolution wasn't even a factor.
The Grand Negus wrote:
These people were the source of my determination to fight for what I believed was right during the ten or more years in which government, industry, and commerce were strongly opposed to the relational approach to database management."
Any sane person would realize you need more than this crap to make the claim to say OOP sucks. I'm waiting, but I don't think you'll accept my challenge. Oh, and I'd love for you to play the old age card with me. That'll just give me one more thing to make you look stupid with. Like I said, I'm waiting.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
-
The original example was mathematical proofs which are – for the most part – symbolic. While your calculus book will have lots of English text the real guts (such as the chain rule, the product rule and the proofs) will be symbolic. Not to diminish English as it plays an important, but no mathematician wants to do his math in English. Take algebra for example: this is a set of rules which allows one to mechanically manipulate a symbolic equation to produce another. An example is the distributive law which stated symbolically looks something like this: a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c This means if I have: 6*107 I can use this rule as follows: 6*107 = 6*(100+7) = 6*100+6*7 = 600+42 = 642 Such rules can be stated in English but doing so is of little help.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Not to diminish English as it plays an important, but no mathematician wants to do his math in English.
I'm not saying - and never did say - that a mathematician would. I'm saying that when a mathematician wants to explain or expound upon his work, he almost always uses a natural language to do so. I'm saying that natural language came first and will not be replaced with artificial languages - augmented, to be sure, but not replaced. You seem to be under the impression that we don't want our PAL 3000 to be able to solve equations. Not so. But as I said in an earlier post, that problem has already been addressed. We just make sure he's got Wolfram's Mathematica on the disk and say, "Solve this problem, PAL," supplying the necessary equations and values. But note that the "interface", if you will, the "Solve this problem, PAL" part - like the text surrounding what you think of as the "important parts" of a math book - is just Plain English.
-
The original example was mathematical proofs which are – for the most part – symbolic. While your calculus book will have lots of English text the real guts (such as the chain rule, the product rule and the proofs) will be symbolic. Not to diminish English as it plays an important, but no mathematician wants to do his math in English. Take algebra for example: this is a set of rules which allows one to mechanically manipulate a symbolic equation to produce another. An example is the distributive law which stated symbolically looks something like this: a*(b+c) = a*b + a*c This means if I have: 6*107 I can use this rule as follows: 6*107 = 6*(100+7) = 6*100+6*7 = 600+42 = 642 Such rules can be stated in English but doing so is of little help.
Steve
Let me say one other thing that most "programmers" don't seem to be aware of. Most programs contain very little math, proportionately speaking. I doubt if 10% our program, for example, is mathematical in any sense of the word - and we display menus, add, delete, and rename files, edit pages, compile programs, etc. So it seems odd to us that programming languages should be based on mathematical notation. Include it, yes, but not be based on it.
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
Not to diminish English as it plays an important, but no mathematician wants to do his math in English.
I'm not saying - and never did say - that a mathematician would. I'm saying that when a mathematician wants to explain or expound upon his work, he almost always uses a natural language to do so. I'm saying that natural language came first and will not be replaced with artificial languages - augmented, to be sure, but not replaced. You seem to be under the impression that we don't want our PAL 3000 to be able to solve equations. Not so. But as I said in an earlier post, that problem has already been addressed. We just make sure he's got Wolfram's Mathematica on the disk and say, "Solve this problem, PAL," supplying the necessary equations and values. But note that the "interface", if you will, the "Solve this problem, PAL" part - like the text surrounding what you think of as the "important parts" of a math book - is just Plain English.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I'm saying that when a mathematician wants to explain or expound upon his work, he almost always uses a natural language to do so.
No, he doesn’t. He might explain what he’s trying to do and name some techniques he’ll be using and even give a broad description of how he’ll proceed. Them he’ll do the real work symbolically. Without the symbolic stuff you’ve got nothing. This is how 99% of mathematics is done.
Steve
-
Let me say one other thing that most "programmers" don't seem to be aware of. Most programs contain very little math, proportionately speaking. I doubt if 10% our program, for example, is mathematical in any sense of the word - and we display menus, add, delete, and rename files, edit pages, compile programs, etc. So it seems odd to us that programming languages should be based on mathematical notation. Include it, yes, but not be based on it.
This is true; most programs contain very little math. But we're straying a little here: math was just used as an example of one place where a formal symbolic notation is superior to English.
Steve
-
It is thoroughly described by wikipedia[^] and you can find plenty of implementations with Google, for example this Python library[^] contains an example. More to the point, why don't you add your Plain English implementations (and stats) to The Great Win32 Computer Language Shootout[^]? Or at least, if the travelling salesman problem seems like too much work, there are several easier choices at this site that you could use and whose solutions should be small enough to post in this forum.
Matt Gerrans
Matt Gerrans wrote:
More to the point, why don't you add your Plain English implementations (and stats) to The Great Win32 Computer Language Shootout[^]?
Primarily because what we're offering is not in direct competition with existing languages. It's the "programming language of the future" and will eventually include most of the other languages for use where they are the appropriate. Think of Plain English like the "text" part of a calculus book; a framework within which other sub-languages are used. Example. I want my Plain English Household Computer, the PAL 3000, to work out a problem for me. I walk over to it and say, "I'm pouring a slab of concrete today, PAL. It's 25 feet by 50 feet and it's 4 inches think. How many cubic yards of concrete should I order?" And the PAL gives me the answer. How? First, by parsing the question. Then by calling a routine to handle the calculation, perhaps using Wolfram's Mathematica program that is stored somewhere on the disk. Note that this process is not unlike the way you and I might do the thing. I say, "Matt, I'm pouring a slab of concrete today..." and you parse the thing in your head, work out the figures on a nearby calculator, and give me the answer. So, which part is missing here? You've got ears, a calculator, and a brain, so we can interact like this. My computer's got a microphone and Mathematica but... See? The part that's missing the the very part we're working on. Who woulda thunk?
-
This is true; most programs contain very little math. But we're straying a little here: math was just used as an example of one place where a formal symbolic notation is superior to English.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
But we're straying a little here: math was just used as an example of one place where a formal symbolic notation is superior to English.
And we don't disagree with that. "A picture is worth a thousand words" - sometimes. Who can deny it? Let me sum up then, and perhaps we can agree. There are many ways to communicate thoughts between beings. Specialized languages, pictures, diagrams, etc. And - of course - natural languages. In any given case, there is typically an optimal choice. To let you know what my wife looks like, I'd probably use a picture; to enumerate the needed groceries, I'd probably use a list of words and phrases. Sometimes one, sometimes another. We're trying to build a machine that will, among other things, answer questions - any kind of questions. From "What does Paul Simon look like?" to "How many cubic yards of concrete in a 25 by 50 slab, 4 inches thick?" Now we all know how to program a computer to fetch a picture from the internet. And we all know how program a computer to do a bit of calculation. The part that is missing is the part that hears the question, parses it, and calls the appropriate lower-level routine (which might be written in C, or Plain English, or assembler). That's the part we're working on. The part that hears the question, parses it, and calls the appropriate routine.
-
PaulC1972 wrote:
You counter Jeremy with this argument, can't you accept his challenge?
Yeah you beat me to it. It's obvious he can't.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It's obvious he can't.
I am still waiting for my Traveling Salesman Problem code in Plain English...
If you try to write that in English, I might be able to understand more than a fraction of it. - Guffa
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
But where's the hypocrisy in that?
Who said anything about being a hypocrite? It's still exploiting the lounge however.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Who said anything about being a hypocrite?
The message all these are hanging under.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It's still exploiting the lounge however.
I quote: "The Lounge is a place where you can discuss anything that takes your fancy. If you just want to laze about and discuss things that don't quite fit elsewhere, then this is the place." And this right is granted to all members, and the only thing required to join is a name and a string of characters that will pass for an email address. So here we are. Besides, what harm are we doing? In fact, I would argue that our posts engender more interesting and more meaningful discussions, on the whole, than many of the "non-exploiting" posters here. Chris should pay us to post just to liven up the place!
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
How about this argument. We wrote an exceptionally efficient native-code-generating compiler/linker with interface, file manager, dumper, text editor, and wysiwyg page editor using exclusively procedural code and not once during the development did the project suffer from disorganization, unreliability, or unnatural expression and not once during the development were we ever even tempted to think in an object-oriented paradigm. If that doesn't do it for you, I don't think a handful of posts here will help.
Won't fly, for one it's abstract. For two, you can do the same thing with an OOP paradigm.
The Grand Negus wrote:
When I first started teaching database design many years ago, I wrote into my materials an appendix explaining why the hierarchical and network approaches to database management were less desirable. I soon found, however, that once students mastered the simple and obvious relational approach taught in the course, the appendix ceased to be of interest; so I delete it. I think the same thing applies here.
We're not talking DBs here. Not to mention, DBMSs use a relational flat scheme, so this is apples to oranges.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If you have a particular example where you think object-oriented thinking works better than a procedural approach, however, I'll be happy to dissect it.
I'd be happy to, but only after you stop avoiding my challenge. Don't pull the "you first" card. I challenged you, not the other way around. If you can't accept that then you obviously don't know enough to defend your stance or otherwise you would have. And for the second time, leave the abstractions out of it. I'm sure someone with your superior intellect can understand this.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And for the second time, leave the abstractions out of it. I'm sure someone with your superior intellect can understand this.
Unfortunately, I can't. Give me an example of what would convince you (and what I'm trying to convince you of - I've forgotten). Something like: If _____________ then I, Jeremy Falcon will be convinced that _____________. Thanks.