ok what are the rules
-
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 :):)
This has got to be one of the longest threads in Code Project history. I'm guessing but I wouldn't doubt it.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
What applications that is used by the public have been developed in PE? Also, considering that the English language is inheritantly flawed, how is it a better alternative? This statement is false.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What applications that is used by the public have been developed in PE?
The program on our website that processes credit card orders.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Also, considering that the English language is inheritantly flawed, how is it a better alternative?
Better than what? Better than an artificial syntax that less than 3% of the overall population understands? I think that answers itself. We're not saying that English is the best choice for programming; we're saying that in a wide variety of applications it will be the inevitable choice. Americans, for example, will want to command their cars and their entertainment systems and their 'droids using their native tongue; and if a computer can be commanded in English, why not programmed in English as well? We find that using the same language as both source and interface is convenient, efficient, and most importantly, enlightening.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I use the term in the sense of "keeping separate things separate".
Well, true OO keeps the algorithms seperate from the data on which they operate. When coupled you've effectively defeated encapsulation to an extent. The natural world follows an Object Oriented format not a procedural one. I'd rather model from a living system that works vs a corrupt language that rarely conveys literally what was originally intended.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Well, true OO keeps the algorithms seperate from the data on which they operate.
Simply not true. Any routine that is "within" an object is bundled to that object.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The natural world follows an Object Oriented format not a procedural one.
Again, simply not true. Cookies don't bake themselves.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'd rather model from a living system that works vs a corrupt language that rarely conveys literally what was originally intended.
If you really believe this, write all your subsequent posts using an object oriented language, please, and stop expressing negative opinions about the very language you are using to express those opinions.
-
You do realize that your tone is entirely pedantic... don't you? Do you really expect people to be open to a perspective when its condescending?
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Do you really expect people to be open to a perspective when its condescending?
Why not? One should be open to any perspective that is true, however it may be presented; and opposed to anything that is false, no matter how pleasing the delivery.
-
English is used to communicate the subject matter to "humans" C++, C# etc communicate to "machines".
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
English is used to communicate the subject matter to "humans" C++, C# etc communicate to "machines".
In most cases, today, yes. But in the future we will see more and more man/machine communication taking place using natural languages. This is a shared dream of humans everywhere - think C-3PO or Data or the HAL 9000. And the dream, at least for us, has become a (partial) reality. When we wanted to tell our machine how to edit a file and compile a program and layout a page, we did it in Plain English. And it was a convenient, efficient, and enjoyable experience. Now we write all our programs this way.
-
I'm curious, why the cultish slant vs the company one? I mean really, I have to admit that as soon as I see the word "Order" used as such I dismiss it. Its too exclusive.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'm curious, why the cultish slant vs the company one? I mean really, I have to admit that as soon as I see the word "Order" used as such I dismiss it. Its too exclusive.
We believe that the future of computing rests with the next generation; the current generation of programmers is much too jaded and too mercenary and simply too "used to" doing things the wrong way; they have too much to unlearn to be profitable disciples; it's not a good idea to put new wine into old wineskins. Some may be willing and able, but - I repeat - it's the next generation that we're betting on. Our full product (currently in the latter stages of development) is designed to capture the imagination of this younger generation. It includes a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside is a collection of "feelies" in a real leather pouch, together with an imaginative and engaging story about a young boy who meets an Osmosian Master and who - after taking the Osmosian Oath ("I promise never to program in any language but my own"), learns to program according to the precepts of the Ancient Ones. The Order was founded with this presentation in mind. But there is always something "cultish" about any group separates themselves from the pack, don't you think? I just checked, for example, and there are more than a million references on the web where the words "cult" and "LINUX" appear together; most of them, I suspect, from the early days. "Cult", someone once said, "is what the big church calls the little church." But why let that bother you? If you're interested in a Plain English development system - including interface, file manager, hex dumper, text editor, native-code generating compiler/linker, and wysiwyg page layout facility - written entirely in Plain English, and that can recompile itself on a bottom-of-the-line Dell in less than 3 seconds (that's right, 3 seconds) - but don't what to be "involved with the cult", just buy one. If it isn't what I just said it was, we'll give you your money back. There's more info on the website, in the Manifesto there, and a nice summary of the product's importance here:[^].
-
Why not? Consoles control how text is displayed within themselves. Does someone else dress you in the morning? No. You dress your self. Negus.Dress(); Now if every time a routine needed to print to a console, it would have to also possess the knowledge of how to print on a console. In the OO way, only the console needs to have this knowledge. The callers need only know that they have the option to request a print of the text they wish displayed. So in the PEP way, every routine needs to know too much to do a vast number of tasks. OO seperates the knowledge such that each of the parts involved are simpler. You only need to call Console.Print instead of knowing what the console knows with regard to printing data to the screen.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
So in the PEP way, every routine needs to know too much to do a vast number of tasks.
Not so. "Write a string to a console" and "Write a string on a printer" are two separate routines in Plain English. And neither routine is "under" or "within" anything.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
You only need to call Console.Print instead of knowing what the console knows with regard to printing data to the screen.
Again, I don't know what you're imagining here, but it's not Plain English. To write a string on a console in Plain English all you have to say is
Write "this string" on the console.
Which, incidently, isn't much longer than
Console.Write("this string");
Our version also has fewer punctuation marks, and our marks are used in the standard English way. Furthermore, our version is suitable for both written and spoken communication, which is essential to folks (like us) who are developing a HAL 9000 like machine.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What applications that is used by the public have been developed in PE?
The program on our website that processes credit card orders.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Also, considering that the English language is inheritantly flawed, how is it a better alternative?
Better than what? Better than an artificial syntax that less than 3% of the overall population understands? I think that answers itself. We're not saying that English is the best choice for programming; we're saying that in a wide variety of applications it will be the inevitable choice. Americans, for example, will want to command their cars and their entertainment systems and their 'droids using their native tongue; and if a computer can be commanded in English, why not programmed in English as well? We find that using the same language as both source and interface is convenient, efficient, and most importantly, enlightening.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Better than an artificial syntax that less than 3% of the overall population understands?
English is also artificial. Language, a set of symbols and syntax to convey meaning through its semantic use. English is the syntax for some Europeans and Americans, Australians, and is a second language to quite a number of people, but hardly for the world. If the language doesn't convey logic very well, meaning that most of the time when people use English they rarely state what they precisely mean. The use of double negatives comes to mind. We take for granted in English that the other person will understand what we really mean. So in this sense the language is flawed logically. So to use this language to convey logic isn't the best choice to me.
The Grand Negus wrote:
we're saying that in a wide variety of applications it will be the inevitable choice
Inevitable for interfacing with mechanical systems that accept commands. But not inevitable for the sole means of programming those mechanisms. This is taking the easy way out, and attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator. A better language is needed to communicate logic. And an artificial syntax is just fine, as English is artificial also, all language is artificial, unless we're talking electro-chemical.
The Grand Negus wrote:
and if a computer can be commanded in English, why not programmed in English as well?
Because the English abstraction doesn't convey logic that well. Its inheritantly flawed. Most of the times people really don't understand each other, they just surf the grey areas.
The Grand Negus wrote:
We find that using the same language as both source and interface is convenient, efficient, and most importantly, enlightening.
Convenient maybe, but not efficient. Performance metrics need to be displayed to prove that and there aren't any comparing the efficiency and performance of PE against other languages. Efficiency of programming only works for a short while. I can say that I can better communicate logic in C# than I can in English. It didn't start that way but it is now. As far as Enlightening, please explain how it will enlighten. As far as I see its more of a restriction. We would gain enlightenment more by approaching problems from multiple angles which differe
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Well, true OO keeps the algorithms seperate from the data on which they operate.
Simply not true. Any routine that is "within" an object is bundled to that object.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The natural world follows an Object Oriented format not a procedural one.
Again, simply not true. Cookies don't bake themselves.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'd rather model from a living system that works vs a corrupt language that rarely conveys literally what was originally intended.
If you really believe this, write all your subsequent posts using an object oriented language, please, and stop expressing negative opinions about the very language you are using to express those opinions.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Simply not true. Any routine that is "within" an object is bundled to that object.
I think you misread my statement. True OO. Meaning a system that seperates the algorithm from the data, not all algorithms are seperated, true, but most would be. The STL is a good example. The algorithms that operate on the containers are not part of the container, but most often functors that perform a given function. This is object oriented, but the algorithms are seperate from the data.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Again, simply not true. Cookies don't bake themselves.
Heh heh, now your just being funny. A heart pumps blood. A heart beats. A liver filters, a brain thinks. A plant grows. Yeasts consume sugar and produce alcohol. This is where absolutes won't work. And that's the point of true Object Oriented designs, is that some functions are encapsulated within the object, and most should not be. In this case C++ is more advanced than C# as in C# everything is a class, that's flawed OO, but in C++ you can have the appropriate blend of Classes that have their functionality, functions that operate on them, and templates that define some processes as generic.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If you really believe this, write all your subsequent posts using an object oriented language, please, and stop expressing negative opinions about the very language you are using to express those opinions.
What I am saying is that English isn't the right tool to convey logic to mechanical devices for their programming. It is flawed when it comes to logic. I wouldn't attempt to use OO in communicating with another HUMAN as that is what English is for. I'm using the right tool for the job. I'm not trying to convince you that C++ is better for communicating with humans, I'm saying that English is for English speaking people, but I am saying that C++ is better than English for communicating with machine language speaking machines. I'm also not expressing negative opinions about English. I'm pointing out the fact that it is flawed. Are you saying that it is in fact not flawed, which would imply that it is perfect? So please stop telling me to stop anything. This is a logical debate. Not personal.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Do you really expect people to be open to a perspective when its condescending?
Why not? One should be open to any perspective that is true, however it may be presented; and opposed to anything that is false, no matter how pleasing the delivery.
Your taking for granted that your position is true. Yet there is no proof. In an open debate regarding the adoption of a new concept the delivery has a lot to do with its reception. If you truly want this new concept accepted then your poisoning your own waters with condescension. And I've stated some truth that your not open to. This is a two way system. This is the part that I have a problem with and is often times the result of a cultish approach, the true believer attitude that there can be no other truth. Or that the truth which is being pushed is absolute, when most likely its only partial. In a time delimited system that is ever changing truth also succumbs to its intertia and changes with time and space.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
English is used to communicate the subject matter to "humans" C++, C# etc communicate to "machines".
In most cases, today, yes. But in the future we will see more and more man/machine communication taking place using natural languages. This is a shared dream of humans everywhere - think C-3PO or Data or the HAL 9000. And the dream, at least for us, has become a (partial) reality. When we wanted to tell our machine how to edit a file and compile a program and layout a page, we did it in Plain English. And it was a convenient, efficient, and enjoyable experience. Now we write all our programs this way.
The Grand Negus wrote:
In most cases, today, yes. But in the future we will see more and more man/machine communication taking place using natural languages. This is a shared dream of humans everywhere - think C-3PO or Data or the HAL 9000.
A shared dream of science fiction writers and Hollywood producers. And the communication part that you cite only applies to the interface. When the machine's application communicates with humans. But the base code that defines them is a different matter altogether.
The Grand Negus wrote:
And the dream, at least for us, has become a (partial) reality. When we wanted to tell our machine how to edit a file and compile a program and layout a page, we did it in Plain English. And it was a convenient, efficient, and enjoyable experience. Now we write all our programs this way.
And you know what? I'm not debating this experience. And I think its a great idea for introducing programming to new English speaking people. Such as Logo was with the turtle. And it might be a nice language to use for some implementations, but not all. What I would like to see is a new language that improves upon the flaws of both English and our current programming languages. But machines don't think in English, they think in bit streams and registers. Maybe with the Quantum Computer we'll have a different system where these ideas will have a better forum. But for anything that requires efficiency in performance, then languages closer to the machine's language are gonna be the better fit. Just as with your English compiler you perform some of your algorithms in Assembly. Because English wasn't the proper fit. Let me clarify, I'm not saying that your system doesn't have value. I am saying that it isn't the panacea that you propose it to be.
What's in a sig? This statement is false. Build a bridge and get over it. ~ Chris Maunder
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Better than an artificial syntax that less than 3% of the overall population understands?
English is also artificial. Language, a set of symbols and syntax to convey meaning through its semantic use. English is the syntax for some Europeans and Americans, Australians, and is a second language to quite a number of people, but hardly for the world. If the language doesn't convey logic very well, meaning that most of the time when people use English they rarely state what they precisely mean. The use of double negatives comes to mind. We take for granted in English that the other person will understand what we really mean. So in this sense the language is flawed logically. So to use this language to convey logic isn't the best choice to me.
The Grand Negus wrote:
we're saying that in a wide variety of applications it will be the inevitable choice
Inevitable for interfacing with mechanical systems that accept commands. But not inevitable for the sole means of programming those mechanisms. This is taking the easy way out, and attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator. A better language is needed to communicate logic. And an artificial syntax is just fine, as English is artificial also, all language is artificial, unless we're talking electro-chemical.
The Grand Negus wrote:
and if a computer can be commanded in English, why not programmed in English as well?
Because the English abstraction doesn't convey logic that well. Its inheritantly flawed. Most of the times people really don't understand each other, they just surf the grey areas.
The Grand Negus wrote:
We find that using the same language as both source and interface is convenient, efficient, and most importantly, enlightening.
Convenient maybe, but not efficient. Performance metrics need to be displayed to prove that and there aren't any comparing the efficiency and performance of PE against other languages. Efficiency of programming only works for a short while. I can say that I can better communicate logic in C# than I can in English. It didn't start that way but it is now. As far as Enlightening, please explain how it will enlighten. As far as I see its more of a restriction. We would gain enlightenment more by approaching problems from multiple angles which differe
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
If the language doesn't convey logic very well, meaning that most of the time when people use English they rarely state what they precisely mean.
True or not, you're using it right now to make your point. Why aren't you using a superior language of your choice? Seriously. I say it's primarily because stating your case in any other form would be harder. But note that we're not saying that our PAL 3000 will only speak English; just that a natural language will be the framework within which other forms of expression are processed. Like my calculus book - it is "written" in a natural language, but is liberally sprinkled with expressions using a more convenient notation for those particular expressions; but introductions, explanations, elaborations, and exercises are written in the natural language of the framework. In other words, we're arguing that it's easier and more productive to think of the expression "2+2" as a sub-language of English, than to think of English as a sub-language of mathematical notation.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
As far as Enlightening, please explain how it will enlighten.
When we wrote the Plain English compiler in Plain English, we were dealing almost exclusively with English expressions in our work; not bouncing back and forth between different modes of expression. What we wanted to parse and what we were parsing were one and the same thing. A guy who uses the word processor he is developing to document the word processor he is developing, for example, will produce a better product than the guy who uses some other tool for the documentation - using his own tool will give him "insights" into the program's benefits and shortcomings; it will "enlighten" him regarding his progress.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'm curious, why the cultish slant vs the company one? I mean really, I have to admit that as soon as I see the word "Order" used as such I dismiss it. Its too exclusive.
We believe that the future of computing rests with the next generation; the current generation of programmers is much too jaded and too mercenary and simply too "used to" doing things the wrong way; they have too much to unlearn to be profitable disciples; it's not a good idea to put new wine into old wineskins. Some may be willing and able, but - I repeat - it's the next generation that we're betting on. Our full product (currently in the latter stages of development) is designed to capture the imagination of this younger generation. It includes a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside is a collection of "feelies" in a real leather pouch, together with an imaginative and engaging story about a young boy who meets an Osmosian Master and who - after taking the Osmosian Oath ("I promise never to program in any language but my own"), learns to program according to the precepts of the Ancient Ones. The Order was founded with this presentation in mind. But there is always something "cultish" about any group separates themselves from the pack, don't you think? I just checked, for example, and there are more than a million references on the web where the words "cult" and "LINUX" appear together; most of them, I suspect, from the early days. "Cult", someone once said, "is what the big church calls the little church." But why let that bother you? If you're interested in a Plain English development system - including interface, file manager, hex dumper, text editor, native-code generating compiler/linker, and wysiwyg page layout facility - written entirely in Plain English, and that can recompile itself on a bottom-of-the-line Dell in less than 3 seconds (that's right, 3 seconds) - but don't what to be "involved with the cult", just buy one. If it isn't what I just said it was, we'll give you your money back. There's more info on the website, in the Manifesto there, and a nice summary of the product's importance here:[^].
The Grand Negus wrote:
We believe that the future of computing rests with the next generation; the current generation of programmers is much too jaded and too mercenary and simply too "used to" doing things the wrong way; they have too much to unlearn to be profitable disciples; it's not a good idea to put new wine into old wineskins. Some may be willing and able, but - I repeat - it's the next generation that we're betting on.
A couple of things here. First off, your stating that the current way is wrong. Period. Yet, you provide no more than that assertion. There is no evidence. No one is saying that the current way is the "One true way". Yet your implying that it is in fact the opposite, while your also implying that your method is the "One true way". Which can't be true. There is no "One true way". As time evolves so do our understanding and knowledge of truth. Your method, even if better than what's here currently, will be obsolete some day. Second, exactly my point. Your looking for "profitable disciples" and using philisophical/religious references of putting new wine into old skins. If you clean the skins its good to reuse them. Don't be so wasteful. Else you'll have to kill a deer and make a new wineskin every time you make some new wine. This isn't promoting a new language for developing software systems. This is looking for followers for a cultish order. And you'll only get a select few, and most likely not the most qualitative. You'll get people who won't question you which would contribute to making this better. Instead you'll have a select set of lemmings that will follow you off the cliff.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Our full product (currently in the latter stages of development) is designed to capture the imagination of this younger generation. It includes a real wooden box with the Osmosian logo branded on the cover; inside is a collection of "feelies" in a real leather pouch, together with an imaginative and engaging story about a young boy who meets an Osmosian Master and who - after taking the Osmosian Oath ("I promise never to program in any language but my own"), learns to program according to the precepts of the Ancient Ones. The Order was founded with this presentation in mind.
This is flawed. This is religious and not engineering. Your looking for followers to promise never to use anything other than their own languages? Oaths like this don't belong in science.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
So in the PEP way, every routine needs to know too much to do a vast number of tasks.
Not so. "Write a string to a console" and "Write a string on a printer" are two separate routines in Plain English. And neither routine is "under" or "within" anything.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
You only need to call Console.Print instead of knowing what the console knows with regard to printing data to the screen.
Again, I don't know what you're imagining here, but it's not Plain English. To write a string on a console in Plain English all you have to say is
Write "this string" on the console.
Which, incidently, isn't much longer than
Console.Write("this string");
Our version also has fewer punctuation marks, and our marks are used in the standard English way. Furthermore, our version is suitable for both written and spoken communication, which is essential to folks (like us) who are developing a HAL 9000 like machine.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Not so. "Write a string to a console" and "Write a string on a printer" are two separate routines in Plain English. And neither routine is "under" or "within" anything.
Who bakes the cookie? The baker. This is an object that knows how the baking of cookies is done. Who knows how to print text to a console? The Console class possesses this knowledge. The string of text doesn't need to know it, but the Console class does. The Printer class would know all the vaguaries of printing to printers. Now this can be done procedurally. So let's move to a different example. Shape.Draw(); The classic OO classroom example. To draw a circle is different than the drawing of a square, and a polygon has its own needs. Yet they all have the need to draw. Now when having multiple types of shapes to draw you might store them all within a container for group access, say in the Draw routine of your Frame. So every frame the device object that knows how to interface with the video hardware would iterate through each object calling for the image of that object to display. Here the shapes provide what they know, an image based on their current state (say the circle shrunk with distance moved) to device object which blits them to the video hardware. The shapes should only perform that which is specific to them. This is good OO design. Bad OO design would be to make each shape aware of different video hardware and passing the device interface to the shape to draw itself. That's not what I'm advocating, but instead that the shape needs to communicate what it knows, and that might very well be an algorithm. In fact what you propose is actually covered in the Flyweight pattern. Where the objects in questions are really just structures of data and various procedural routines operate on that data. Are there structures in PE?
The Grand Negus wrote:
Which, incidently, isn't much longer than
But it is longer. One of the nice things about these languages, and do a search on BOO, is that it saves typing when conveying the same logic. Carpel tunnel being what it is, I certainly don't want to adopt a language that is more verbose.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Our version also has fewer punctuation marks, and our marks are used in the standard English way. Furthermore, our version is suitable for both written and spoken communication, which is essential t
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
If the language doesn't convey logic very well, meaning that most of the time when people use English they rarely state what they precisely mean.
True or not, you're using it right now to make your point. Why aren't you using a superior language of your choice? Seriously. I say it's primarily because stating your case in any other form would be harder. But note that we're not saying that our PAL 3000 will only speak English; just that a natural language will be the framework within which other forms of expression are processed. Like my calculus book - it is "written" in a natural language, but is liberally sprinkled with expressions using a more convenient notation for those particular expressions; but introductions, explanations, elaborations, and exercises are written in the natural language of the framework. In other words, we're arguing that it's easier and more productive to think of the expression "2+2" as a sub-language of English, than to think of English as a sub-language of mathematical notation.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
As far as Enlightening, please explain how it will enlighten.
When we wrote the Plain English compiler in Plain English, we were dealing almost exclusively with English expressions in our work; not bouncing back and forth between different modes of expression. What we wanted to parse and what we were parsing were one and the same thing. A guy who uses the word processor he is developing to document the word processor he is developing, for example, will produce a better product than the guy who uses some other tool for the documentation - using his own tool will give him "insights" into the program's benefits and shortcomings; it will "enlighten" him regarding his progress.
The Grand Negus wrote:
True or not, you're using it right now to make your point. Why aren't you using a superior language of your choice? Seriously. I say it's primarily because stating your case in any other form would be harder.
And I've stated already that English is my language of choice when communicating with Humans. And for communicating with English speaking people I'm not advocating that there is a superior language. That's an assumption on your part. Seriously, you do get that don't you? I'm saying that English is good for talking to humans. Not computers. And I'm also not saying that it isn't good for talking to applications. That's the interface not the definition. But when defining applications, English is not the best language. And you haven't shown that it is. In fact it would be HARDER for me to define and application in English as it would take too much language to do so.
The Grand Negus wrote:
But note that we're not saying that our PAL 3000 will only speak English; just that a natural language will be the framework within which other forms of expression are processed.
And we really aren't debating what this application will speak. We're debating how it will be defined. What language is used to define it, not which language is used by humans to interface with it.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Like my calculus book - it is "written" in a natural language, but is liberally sprinkled with expressions using a more convenient notation for those particular expressions; but introductions, explanations, elaborations, and exercises are written in the natural language of the framework.
How is the syntax and grammar of English natural? How are the expressions in mathematical notation artificial? Sure you can communicate math with English, but it isn't as efficient. This is my entire point. And the use of English in the math book is to communicate with an English speaking human.
The Grand Negus wrote:
but introductions, explanations, elaborations, and exercises are written in the natural language of the framework.
What framework? Its communicating with an English speaking Person. A computer doesn't speak English and it isn't natural for it to do so.
The Grand Negus wrote:
In other words, we're arguing that it's eas
-
As Kevin stated Code Complete is a must read. For C# and .NET one should read the Framework Design Guidelines book by Brad Abrams and Krystzof Cwalina. Design Patterns book is also a must read. Steve McConnell's code complete book has a list of books that developers should read depending on their levels. I think that is a great list (except few of the books are not in print). There is also this article by Joel: 12 Steps to Better Code [^]
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -Brian Kernighan
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
For C# and .NET one should read the Framework Design Guidelines book by Brad Abrams and Krystzof Cwalina
w00t, once in a millennium I use "search comments" before posting question and look! The fact that you named this book next to Code Complete says something... Guess that answers my question if this book is good :)
"Throughout human history, we have been dependent on machines to survive. Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony. " - Morpheus