ok what are the rules
-
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!
"Eppur si muove" - ? :)
-
Amar Chaudhary wrote:
so what are the rules which you follow and think i should also follow
Sorry, forgot one - a very important one: Abandon the "object oriented" way of thinking and write the thing, as much as possible (with the language you've chosen), as traditional procedural code. Keep your nouns (data definitions) and your verbs (operations on those nouns) separate.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Abandon the "object oriented" way of thinking and write the thing, as much as possible (with the language you've chosen), as traditional procedural code. Keep your nouns (data definitions) and your verbs (operations on those nouns) separate.
Now I finally understand you. You are not a troll, you are totally incapable of understanding and "getting a clue" because you have lost complete touch with reality. This finally makes sense. The good news is, they do have medication for schizophrenia now. The bad news is, you probably will not, therefore HAL will keep talking you into visiting us and preaching your nonsense.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Abandon the "object oriented" way of thinking and write the thing, as much as possible (with the language you've chosen), as traditional procedural code. Keep your nouns (data definitions) and your verbs (operations on those nouns) separate.
Now I finally understand you. You are not a troll, you are totally incapable of understanding and "getting a clue" because you have lost complete touch with reality. This finally makes sense. The good news is, they do have medication for schizophrenia now. The bad news is, you probably will not, therefore HAL will keep talking you into visiting us and preaching your nonsense.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
You are not a troll, you are totally incapable of understanding and "getting a clue" because you have lost complete touch with reality
:laugh: Good one :-D
Some people have a memory and an attention span, you should try them out one day. - Jeremy Falcon
-
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I would be willing to bet that most Plain English parsing engines are written in some kind of OOP language.
But ours isn't written that way. And we prefered not to write it that way - though we could have. And we believe that the ease with which we produced it, and the efficiency with which it runs, testifies to the fact that we made the right decision.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Someone with your experience should know that, at some point, you have to bridge the gap between the user and the chips in the machine.
Of course. And we did bridge that gap - we wrote a Plain English compiler, in Plain English, that generates native Intel machine code.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
OOP languages that compile down to real code are the best option we have right now.
We don't think so. We prefer to program in Plain English. Without objects. And we do.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to admit that.
Because we've done it both ways and prefer Plain English without objects.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Sounds like you're stuck in the past.
The past? We're not the ones using a derivative of a language and syntax from the 1960's! We're using our own native tongue - English - to write programs.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I read your definition of how Plain English works, and you described it in an object-oriented manner... ears, brain, calculator... I hate to burst your bubble but those are objects.
Objects in the sense of "nouns", yes. But objects in the sense that they "do things" on their own, in the sense that they have their "methods" inside them, no. Our ears don't hear; they are used by us to hear with. Our brains don't think; they are used by us to think with. Our calculators don't calculate; they are used by us to calculate with. This is the fundamental issue we have with objects - they way they bind verbs underneath the nouns. This, we believe, is fundamentally wrong - a bad paradigm. All the other flaws of the object approach stem from this error.
The Grand Negus wrote:
The past? We're not the ones using a derivative of a language and syntax from the 1960's! We're using our own native tongue - English - to write programs.
So you are worried we're using a derivative of a 1960's language, continously improved using lessoned learned over the last 40 years, and you are using the random brain firings of a language from 5000 or more BC that doesn't even write well!??!! Wow, what a "bear" of a project to "bare" to us here. Pity you can't "pare" your ego down, or at least "pair" it up with a bit of logic instead of nonsense...
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
PaulC1972 wrote:
I thought that when the Osmosian guys posted those articles some months ago. Couldn't make any sense of the coding and it looked like something I would have gotten agitated over.
Yeah, they keep on saying PEP is more natural and you can type more code despite it being verbose because it flows so to speak. Personally, I don't think they spent enough time coding in another language that's not verbose to get that same flow. And having to use the shift key is not a show stopper for me. :rolleyes: Really though, if syntax was the only issue in debate (which it's not). I still wouldn't be crazy about it.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And having to use the shift key is not a show stopper for me.
Which just goes to show you that you have never drunk all your brain cells away. :)
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Really though, if syntax was the only issue in debate (which it's not). I still wouldn't be crazy about it.
That has always been what I have said. We need something to gain from a language. At least C# has some benefits to the programmer beyond just a "new" (or in the case of PEP: incredibly ancient) syntax. In fact, there is so much you have to give up to program in PEP that half of the software written today wouldn't be possible to write in PEP. No games, no simulations, no scientific visualization, no concurrent massive parallel problem solving.... He may want "HAL 9000", but he is pushing a Hal 9000BC!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Buy a copy of Steve McConnell's Code Complete for the office. Depending on what languages you're using look up the recommended style and/or practices guides on the web. E.g., for .NET this would be MS's Design Guidelines for Class Library Developers in the MSDN library. Though I don't think this has been updated for .NET 2.
Kevin
Yes, read McConnell, both as a survival guide for how to deal with hopelessly Microsoft-centric development shops and as a reminder of what not to do in more enlightened organisations. Remember that there are no silver bullets; if someone hands you one, scrape it a little bit; you'll find plutonium underneath. Bearing that in mind, what I've seen work boils down to: Use a lightweight process that encourages and rewards user/stakeholder participation throughout the process. Change happens; plan for it. Have "heavier" processes like RUP in your capability matrix, but don't default to them; you don't need to write documentation the size of the Encyclopedia Brittanica to code an address book. At the same time, borrow a credo from the medical profession: If you don't write it down, it never happened. Don't mindlessly repeat what the code says; your ideal should be a concise, complete pixel trail that would accomplish two related but divergent missions: a) allowing a comparably competent developer to recreate your system at least as well as you did, and b) to allow the other stakeholders (customers, management) to understand where you are, what you're doing, why, and what further conflicts and resource needs (time, money, etc.) separate the team from total success. Don't tie your "crown jewels" of design and other IP away in proprietary lockboxes. Use tools based on open standards (Web+database=wikis and blogs, for instance) that will survive anything time, entropy and failing memories can throw at them. Even if you're developing for a single, proprietary, system, always develop as much as possible to be portable across everything - and test that completely. No matter what your deployment system, portability requirements, etc.... clean interface design and separation of purposes, religiously applied, will save your neck far more often than you believe it will break it. Any piece of code should have only one reason to change. Audit your code, both individually and collectively. Anything that hasn'tAnything that hasn't been proven to work in all respects is assumed to fail under any and all circumstances. Any code that can't be tested should be removed, and the cascade of defective planning/design that spawned it in the first place should be identified, examined, and torn out by the roots. I led a small team charged with implementing a critical component (about 1,700 C++ classes) for a large, very well-known American softw
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
it is excessively dogmatic
I do agree with you on that front. While I think it's a good book, I do think it should serve as a guide more so than a religion.
Jeremy Falcon A multithreaded, OpenGL-enabled application.[^]
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I do think it should serve as a guide more so than a religion.
egad, I hope everyone believes the same! Good programming is adaptive, which makes the whole universe a guide.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The past? We're not the ones using a derivative of a language and syntax from the 1960's! We're using our own native tongue - English - to write programs.
So you are worried we're using a derivative of a 1960's language, continously improved using lessoned learned over the last 40 years, and you are using the random brain firings of a language from 5000 or more BC that doesn't even write well!??!! Wow, what a "bear" of a project to "bare" to us here. Pity you can't "pare" your ego down, or at least "pair" it up with a bit of logic instead of nonsense...
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
I was only saying stuck in the past because you are espousing procedural approaches over object approaches. I'm ready to download this Plain English thing... send us the link.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps! -
I was only saying stuck in the past because you are espousing procedural approaches over object approaches. I'm ready to download this Plain English thing... send us the link.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps!Jasmine2501 wrote:
I'm ready to download this Plain English thing... send us the link.
It's in his every post. Good luck, be preprared to give up floating point math as well as objects, you don't need advanced graphics, and you will be limited to only those "parts" of programming that "He" deems not beneath Himself to write into His own compiler. He is "perfect" and He is "always right" and any idea you have will be beneath Him, because you are meaningless to Him, even as a customer. Good luck!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
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.
The Grand Negus wrote:
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.
http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/hash.html[^] and time the result. A hash table is one of the simplest concepts in computer programming and has been translated to every language imaginable because it is extremely useful. Add yours to the list and lets see the results, both in code AND in implimentation speed. After all final implimentation is not just readability, but USE! If it isn't practical in application of use, then it is just playground theory.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I was only saying stuck in the past because you are espousing procedural approaches over object approaches. I'm ready to download this Plain English thing... send us the link.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for (freeware) JazzySiteMaps, a simple application to generate .Net and Google-style sitemaps!Jasmine2501 wrote:
I'm ready to download this Plain English thing... send us the link.
You have to write to us directly to get the link. We don't publish the link because the product is not free. Others - some merely curious - have paid for it, and, I might note, none have asked for a refund (ie, they thought it worth the hundred bucks, either as a tool, or as something educational, inspiring, or just plain entertaining). Evaluation copies, however, are available to those who are more than simply curious - developers who wish to build something on top of it; educators who want to use it as a teaching tool; and other individuals who will take the time (about half a day) to thoroughly digest what we're actually saying and provide us with a review (public or private). If you think you fit into one of those categories, write: help@osmosian.com.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
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.
http://www.azillionmonkeys.com/qed/hash.html[^] and time the result. A hash table is one of the simplest concepts in computer programming and has been translated to every language imaginable because it is extremely useful. Add yours to the list and lets see the results, both in code AND in implimentation speed. After all final implimentation is not just readability, but USE! If it isn't practical in application of use, then it is just playground theory.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
A hash table is one of the simplest concepts in computer programming and has been translated to every language imaginable because it is extremely useful. Add yours to the list and lets see the results, both in code AND in implimentation speed. After all final implimentation is not just readability, but USE! If it isn't practical in application of use, then it is just playground theory.
Our compiler uses a variety of hash tables; they are efficient enough to enable us to process our source code at about 12,000 lines per second. I think that makes them "practical in application use" and not just "playground theory". How that compares with other people's hash tables, we simply don't care. We've got 'em, and they work for us.
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
A hash table is one of the simplest concepts in computer programming and has been translated to every language imaginable because it is extremely useful. Add yours to the list and lets see the results, both in code AND in implimentation speed. After all final implimentation is not just readability, but USE! If it isn't practical in application of use, then it is just playground theory.
Our compiler uses a variety of hash tables; they are efficient enough to enable us to process our source code at about 12,000 lines per second. I think that makes them "practical in application use" and not just "playground theory". How that compares with other people's hash tables, we simply don't care. We've got 'em, and they work for us.
The Grand Negus wrote:
How that compares with other people's hash tables, we simply don't care.
As with most of your stuff.... "We did it our way, you change or you are wrong." is your answer to everything. THIS is why you get no respect here. Implimentation is everything, when you handle 300,000 geodetic operations per second, 30,000 line-of sight operations per thread, speed and implimentation is everything. Your way or the highway, just doesn't cut it. You can stay on your highway, but you will end up like everything else on the highway....
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
How that compares with other people's hash tables, we simply don't care.
As with most of your stuff.... "We did it our way, you change or you are wrong." is your answer to everything. THIS is why you get no respect here. Implimentation is everything, when you handle 300,000 geodetic operations per second, 30,000 line-of sight operations per thread, speed and implimentation is everything. Your way or the highway, just doesn't cut it. You can stay on your highway, but you will end up like everything else on the highway....
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
We did it our way,
Yes, I said that.
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
you change or you are wrong
I said nothing like that. I said our routines were fast enough for our purposes and that we didn't care if that was faster or slower than someone else's. That's all.
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Implimentation is everything, when you handle 300,000 geodetic operations per second, 30,000 line-of sight operations per thread, speed and implimentation is everything.
I imagine that's true. But we're not trying to do anything like that here. Personally, I'd write the critical parts of such a routine in machine code so I knew exactly what it was doing; we did a similar thing with the string comparison routines in our compiler.
-
Well the fact that you have started a thread with a massive number of replies, shows there is no simple answer. But there is only one Golden Rule you should follow when it comes to programming: DO NOT, under any circumstances, write ANYTHING in Visual Basic! (I just can't believe no one else has stated this already! :)) BTW, you might even have started the longest Lounge thread this year? Partly because you gave an opportunity for the words 'plain english' to appear :doh: :laugh:
"For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
DO NOT, under any circumstances, write ANYTHING in Visual Basic!
i did applied that :laugh:
Ashley van Gerven wrote:
TW, you might even have started the longest Lounge thread this year? Partly because you gave an opportunity for the words 'plain english' to appear :doh: :laugh:
yeah i thought that it is stopped near 70 then PEP came and some what divert the thread :doh: the count reaches 188 and still growing cause The Grand Negus 15mins ago :mad:
it is good to be important but it is more important to be good
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
We did it our way,
Yes, I said that.
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
you change or you are wrong
I said nothing like that. I said our routines were fast enough for our purposes and that we didn't care if that was faster or slower than someone else's. That's all.
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote:
Implimentation is everything, when you handle 300,000 geodetic operations per second, 30,000 line-of sight operations per thread, speed and implimentation is everything.
I imagine that's true. But we're not trying to do anything like that here. Personally, I'd write the critical parts of such a routine in machine code so I knew exactly what it was doing; we did a similar thing with the string comparison routines in our compiler.
The Grand Negus wrote:
we did a similar thing with the string comparison routines in our compiler.
but I thought you said your compiler was written in plain english? so now plain english wasn't good enough so you wrote assembly to boost it? Guess things are getting clearer.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I said nothing like that.
You say it in your attitude. OO is wrong, drop it, dump it, erase it from the existance. Our Plain English is superior to everything in the known universe and you are an idiot to ignore it. That is what your attitude says in every single one of your posts. Arrogant, egocentric, and unable to accept any reason. We tell you why floating is good, you get angry and defensive, and tell us we are wrong. We tell you why advanced OO, memory operations, graphics, math, and other many varieties of code formations are good, and you say no... they are bad, drop everything and try our code.
The Grand Negus wrote:
and that we didn't care if that was faster or slower than someone else's. That's all.
so if C/C++ is 1000 times faster, you still stand by the idea that plain english is right? of proper use of OO is 10 times easier to maintain in large groups than plain english your code is still right? You don't care about any of those things because you were right, and everyone else is wrong. Speed is irrelevant, so you don't test it, you only care about the concept no matter how useful, it must be right regardless of speed, regardless of professional opinion, simply because your opinion is always right.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
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
.
-
Where is the hypocrisy in recommending the best we have to offer, on-topic, to someone who is looking for good ideas regarding programming? We wrote the thing for this very purpose; why shouldn't we offer it?
The Grand Negus wrote:
Where is the hypocrisy in recommending the best we have to offer, on-topic, to someone who is looking for good ideas regarding programming? We wrote the thing for this very purpose; why shouldn't we offer it?
Here we go again.
-
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:
We've never hidden the fact that our product is for sale.
No kidding?
The Grand Negus wrote:
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
Wow. You couldn't sound more cult-ish.
-
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I would be willing to bet that most Plain English parsing engines are written in some kind of OOP language.
But ours isn't written that way. And we prefered not to write it that way - though we could have. And we believe that the ease with which we produced it, and the efficiency with which it runs, testifies to the fact that we made the right decision.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Someone with your experience should know that, at some point, you have to bridge the gap between the user and the chips in the machine.
Of course. And we did bridge that gap - we wrote a Plain English compiler, in Plain English, that generates native Intel machine code.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
OOP languages that compile down to real code are the best option we have right now.
We don't think so. We prefer to program in Plain English. Without objects. And we do.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I don't understand why you're so reluctant to admit that.
Because we've done it both ways and prefer Plain English without objects.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
Sounds like you're stuck in the past.
The past? We're not the ones using a derivative of a language and syntax from the 1960's! We're using our own native tongue - English - to write programs.
Jasmine2501 wrote:
I read your definition of how Plain English works, and you described it in an object-oriented manner... ears, brain, calculator... I hate to burst your bubble but those are objects.
Objects in the sense of "nouns", yes. But objects in the sense that they "do things" on their own, in the sense that they have their "methods" inside them, no. Our ears don't hear; they are used by us to hear with. Our brains don't think; they are used by us to think with. Our calculators don't calculate; they are used by us to calculate with. This is the fundamental issue we have with objects - they way they bind verbs underneath the nouns. This, we believe, is fundamentally wrong - a bad paradigm. All the other flaws of the object approach stem from this error.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Our ears don't hear
Well our ears do perform play a physical role in the process of hearing. So it's quite acceptable to say that our ears hear. But let's say your preference is to have a Person object that does all these things;
Person.Hear(earInstance) Person.Calculate(calcInstance) Person.Think(brainInstance)Now you have to split code for a given function accross two objects. When really there's nothing fundametally wrong with grouping all hearing functionality in anEarobject. The fact is it's a convention which is quite simple to understand, and you can name your objects however you like (in your case to ensure they imitate the real world as closely as possible). But in your case you have a syntax to imitate the real world more closely by adhering to normal english grammar. But all you're really doing is following another convention. Consider the fact that different languages say things differently, and again you could argue for the next 10 years as to which is more logical. In French I would say "je m'apelle Ashley" ("I call myself Ashley"), instead of "my name is Ashley". Different convention, that's all. The English sounds more logical to *us* - but we are biased. Now it's quite common for developers, inventors etc. to be biased towards their own ideas. Which is why you should maybe consider being upfront about your bias in your posts, rather than stating your approaches as factually superior. If your ideas truly are superior, eventually you will have dozens, hundreds, thousands saying 'that idea of his is way better than the old approach'."For fifty bucks I'd put my face in their soup and blow." - George Costanza
~ Web SQL Utility - asp.net app to query Access, SQL server, MySQL. Stores history, favourites.