How sophisticated is your code?
-
The proper reply is, "My code enjoys a night at the opera, scotch and caviar. Top that bitch."
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil PeartThen it's bordering on foppish. I bet it lifts its pinky when it drinks tea. I try to keep my code between precocious and incorrigible.
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
It drinks white wine with fish, red with beef, and doesn't eat pork at all.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
The proper reply is, "My code enjoys a night at the opera, scotch and caviar. Top that bitch."
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil PeartI like your response better than mine.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
Mark Nischalke wrote:
How sophisticated is your code
My answer would be: My code is generally readable, so simple in conceptual application, but sophisticated in invention. Multiple times has industry scrambled to find out how I did something. The most recent of which: Boeing introduced a request for a 5 million dollar contract to do an alternative to augmented reality in field operations since "the technology was not existant for a true out-of-lab software solution..." the same week we made the announcement at a Virginia presentation that we had taken augmented reality out of the lab and into the field and not as a prototype, but as a full operational and tested system. Sophistication in "new" designs: sophistication in creative solutions, sophistication in invention and R&D, but simple in overall design and application such that it is easy to understand how I did it once someone gets the code.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
How sophisticated is your code
My answer would be: My code is generally readable, so simple in conceptual application, but sophisticated in invention. Multiple times has industry scrambled to find out how I did something. The most recent of which: Boeing introduced a request for a 5 million dollar contract to do an alternative to augmented reality in field operations since "the technology was not existant for a true out-of-lab software solution..." the same week we made the announcement at a Virginia presentation that we had taken augmented reality out of the lab and into the field and not as a prototype, but as a full operational and tested system. Sophistication in "new" designs: sophistication in creative solutions, sophistication in invention and R&D, but simple in overall design and application such that it is easy to understand how I did it once someone gets the code.
_________________________ 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 on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
if my code was a person, it would be "Bond, James Bond"... :cool: Steve
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone. The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Man, you need to get out of the SB more. ;P Honestly, the few times I've seen you post something in the Lounge, it's something very good. :) I don't visit the SB these days anyway...
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone. The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone.
At my company I was asked to rewrite my ASP.Net application in VB, due to the fact that no-one else can understand C#.:confused: I thought the reason they employed me was to teach them how to use more "advanced" technology.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone. The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless. Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Argh! So much text! It's too complex for me to read! ;P But seriously, I couldn't express myself better than you did.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable.
I'm going to add an entry in my blog, quoting you. That's got to be the best way of stating the problem that I've ever come across. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
I'm going to add an entry in my blog, quoting you.
For all the good it will do. I am convinced that there will always be a controlling faction of the commercial software industry which simply refuses to allow software to be developed by grownups - it would just be such an expensive waste of time and all. -- modified at 7:15 Monday 11th June, 2007
-
if my code was a person, it would be "Bond, James Bond"... :cool: Steve
The whole 'license to kill' thing is a bit of a problem, however.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Mark Nischalke wrote:
How sophisticated is your code
My answer would be: My code is generally readable, so simple in conceptual application, but sophisticated in invention. Multiple times has industry scrambled to find out how I did something. The most recent of which: Boeing introduced a request for a 5 million dollar contract to do an alternative to augmented reality in field operations since "the technology was not existant for a true out-of-lab software solution..." the same week we made the announcement at a Virginia presentation that we had taken augmented reality out of the lab and into the field and not as a prototype, but as a full operational and tested system. Sophistication in "new" designs: sophistication in creative solutions, sophistication in invention and R&D, but simple in overall design and application such that it is easy to understand how I did it once someone gets the code.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone.
At my company I was asked to rewrite my ASP.Net application in VB, due to the fact that no-one else can understand C#.:confused: I thought the reason they employed me was to teach them how to use more "advanced" technology.
-
Despite knowing how to code VB, does anyone else find it a very difficult language to be able to read efficiently? It might be just my C roots that push me toward C#, but I guess sometimes you have to "speak the language of the land".
jps330 wrote:
I guess sometimes you have to "speak the language of the land"
My problem with this is that I can write a better, faster system with C than in VB in shorter time that it would have taken to do it in VB. The argument that my company gave me is as follows : "If you leave, nobody will be able to support the system". As far as I know I am not the only person in the world that can code in C. Why should I write a crappy slow system, just so that my replacement can understand it?
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
Stand up. Find the door. Respond... "AMF sir" Leave.
MrPlankton
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
probably more than your people would understand.
Aye, there be the truth of it. I would honestly have to answer, that one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it. The lessons learned from that experience are vast and deep. There certainly isn't anyone to blame, per se, but it revealed a variety of deficiencies dealing with motivation, education, documentation, and communication. Pretty much all the things we try to ignore. :sigh: Marc
Funny. I find the same response when ever one of my customers find that thier contract programmer used regex. "What are those funky symbols and what do they mean". Oh my goodness we are doomed.
MrPlankton
-
Despite knowing how to code VB, does anyone else find it a very difficult language to be able to read efficiently? It might be just my C roots that push me toward C#, but I guess sometimes you have to "speak the language of the land".
No differance between vb and c# in capability... Until you go to computerjobs.com. Then you find 15k premium for c# programmers. Now every project is a c# project.
MrPlankton
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone.
At my company I was asked to rewrite my ASP.Net application in VB, due to the fact that no-one else can understand C#.:confused: I thought the reason they employed me was to teach them how to use more "advanced" technology.
I am so fortunate to work in a very small shop where my boss actually likes it when I use some new tool or technique that he doesn't know. It gives him an opportunity to learn something new too.
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
My applications always seem to start out simple enough, depending on the complexity of the app. It's all of the stuff you have to do to "idiot-proof" it that makes it become more complex. It always seems like a lot is overlooked during the analysis phase that is discovered later in QA. Then, there's the code comments and documentation, which, in an effort to explain code, can make it more confusing. Which is less complex?: // Items to display on each page (1 to 50) $maxitems = 20; or // This is how many items will be displayed on each page // It has to be at least 1 // It can't be more than 50 // Don't change the name of the variable!!! $maxitems = 20; // Fix maxitems // DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES BELOW THIS LINE!!! function checkmaxitems() { if (isset($maxitems)) { if ($maxitems < 1) maxitems = 1; if ($maxitems > 50) maxitems = 50; } else { $maxitems = 20; } }
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein The architecture should not be complex from the beginning. It should represent a complex solution to a problem domain in the simplest, and easiest understood way. The code that implements the architecture should likewise be simple, easy to understand and maintain, yet complete the complext tasks that make up the solution.
only two letters away from being an asset
I think the only true measure of well designed software is an architecture that does not become more complex over time. It is designed well enough that it can be maintained and modified with no significant change to the original architecture. That could well mean starting off with a higher level of complexity than might ultimately be needed. But that is better than starting off with an underdesigned architecture and tweaking it until it begins to grow exponentially more complex in an out of control fashion.