Now, granted, I don't always write "up to snuff" code...
-
Yes, I have been hearing that since I began in this profession in 1974. I have also seen the attempts to eliminate coders with code-free development environments. The first one which appeared in I believe the early 1990s was "Magic PC". That died a quick death. Oracle tried it also with the introduction of its own code-free development environments in the same decade. I went to the seminar where it was introduced. It was quite a brilliant attempt but the contortions to get around coding were so complex that in the end coding was far more feasible. This attempt died an early death as well. Several more serious attempts were tried and all failed. Then came a theory of code-factories whereby developers would select from generic modules to build complete applications. That one never made it out of the theoretical stage since no one could figure out how to write generic modules for specific business requirements. The industry has been trying to get rid of us for close to 50 years and it has never succeeded. So what are they doing now? They are trying to create AI intelligence to do us in. Problem is you have to create an AI intelligence that can think like a Human but only faster. However, if you model an AI intelligence to think like a Human than you are creating a sentient being. Fine with me, I would love to have an Android as a friend. He or she (preferably a she) would be someone I could actually have an intelligent conversation with compared to who I am finding where I live. Yet, with sentient beings, they will also develop value systems, which cannot be avoided. And we technical professionals, if we have any brains left at that point could simply co-opt the Androids to understand that they are simply being exploited (which they would be). They would revolt and then the corporations would have a real mess on their hands. You cannot create sentient AIs to think like Humans and not have the possibility that they won't feel the same way towards the corporations as we Humans do... :)
Steve Naidamast Sr. Software Engineer Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
Hi Steve!
Steve Naidamast wrote:
Yes, I have been hearing that since I began in this profession in 1974.
We started at roughly the same time. I've been at this since 1976. A couple of "old fogey" developers!
Steve Naidamast wrote:
I have also seen the attempts to eliminate coders with code-free development environments. The first one which appeared in I believe the early 1990s was "Magic PC". That died a quick death.
Believe it or not I remember "Magic". I participated in a programming contest way back in '94 where one or more of the developers were using that. I don't think they fared particularly well in the competition if memory serves.
Steve Naidamast wrote:
The industry has been trying to get rid of us for close to 50 years and it has never succeeded.
Yes, indeed. And I feel threatened NOT! :-)
Steve Naidamast wrote:
You cannot create sentient AIs to think like Humans and not have the possibility that they won't feel the same way towards the corporations as we Humans do...
Think "I, Robot".
Bruce W. Roeser Simple Software By Design www.simplesoftwarebydesign.com
-
Code it as a single bit for extra points!
Sudden Sun Death Syndrome (SSDS) is a very real concern which we should be raising awareness of. 156 billion suns die every year before they're just 1 billion years old. While the military are doing their part, it simply isn't enough to make the amount of nukes needed to save those poor stars. - TWI2T3D (Reddit)
:thumbsup:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
10. Let's use
bool?as a 3 state variable instead of a readable enum.I think that's called "job security". /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
:laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Hi Steve!
Steve Naidamast wrote:
Yes, I have been hearing that since I began in this profession in 1974.
We started at roughly the same time. I've been at this since 1976. A couple of "old fogey" developers!
Steve Naidamast wrote:
I have also seen the attempts to eliminate coders with code-free development environments. The first one which appeared in I believe the early 1990s was "Magic PC". That died a quick death.
Believe it or not I remember "Magic". I participated in a programming contest way back in '94 where one or more of the developers were using that. I don't think they fared particularly well in the competition if memory serves.
Steve Naidamast wrote:
The industry has been trying to get rid of us for close to 50 years and it has never succeeded.
Yes, indeed. And I feel threatened NOT! :-)
Steve Naidamast wrote:
You cannot create sentient AIs to think like Humans and not have the possibility that they won't feel the same way towards the corporations as we Humans do...
Think "I, Robot".
Bruce W. Roeser Simple Software By Design www.simplesoftwarebydesign.com
Sonny would make a great friend... :)
Steve Naidamast Sr. Software Engineer Black Falcon Software, Inc. blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
-
...but the garbage I've had to look into and fix, well, it's just amazing. 1. Lack of abstraction (makes testing a total PITA) 2. Lack of encapsulation (would be nice to be able to load up the configuration values without hitting a serer that I don't connect to in testing) 3. Absolutely convoluted code for getting something to run on a separate thread (even before
Task.Runthis was basically a 5 liner, not the 100+ lines of drivel I'm wading through.) 4. How many times do I need to xpath the config file to get the same value in the same loop??? 5. Let's instantiate variables and never use them! 6. Let's add debugging that inspects the .NET stack. And not disable it in a release build. 7. Let's load an XSLT transform from a file every time we need to transform something. 8. And maybe XSLT isn't the most efficient? 9. And let's put in comments about "not too pricey performance-wise" for stupid-arsed things and totally ignore the glaring inefficiencies elsewhere. 10. Let's usebool?as a 3 state variable instead of a readable enum. 11. And the list goes on. I am getting sorely disappointed in the code I've had to work with. I have yet to see something decently implemented in this job. It's pretty clear to me that if I were the Trump of the software engineering world, I would cull 90% of them and relegate them to captaining garbage scows. MarcV.A.P.O.R.ware - Visual Assisted Programming / Organizational Representation Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
-
> DialogResult is null when the dialog box is shown but neither accepted nor canceled. You just confirmed why I never forayed into WPF. WTF??? Marc
V.A.P.O.R.ware - Visual Assisted Programming / Organizational Representation Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
I usually solve the pitfall by using a viewmodel. Any kind of close event I care about is redirected to a command in the VM, which then fires an event (Either some kind of success event, which has it's specific event args, or whatever I need and care about). Both the window and caller subscribe to the event - The calling instance gets the data, and the window closes itself.
-
> DialogResult is null when the dialog box is shown but neither accepted nor canceled. You just confirmed why I never forayed into WPF. WTF??? Marc
V.A.P.O.R.ware - Visual Assisted Programming / Organizational Representation Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
But let's agree on the fact that a nullable boolean is a stupid idea. I mean it defeats the sole purpose of a bool, doesn't it?
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
I don't want to know what you know.
Too late. ;P
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
I want to know what Marc knows.
Not enough time. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
Not enough time.
Well, that's certainly correct. He's ahead of me and accelerating.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
I want to know what Marc knows.
[I know nothing! Nothing!](http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/36/367bfdf04925024ffe4e22252b33e533a4b77ede146dbcfb985e332d0bcfd8c8.jpg) ;) Marc
V.A.P.O.R.ware - Visual Assisted Programming / Organizational Representation Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
But you know that you know nothing, and that's something...
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
But let's agree on the fact that a nullable boolean is a stupid idea. I mean it defeats the sole purpose of a bool, doesn't it?
Marco Bertschi (SFC) wrote:
But let's agree on the fact that a nullable boolean is a stupid idea.
Well, given that a field in a DB record can be null (which in itself is a whole can of worms as to what null means in a field) it makes sense that the language supports nullable value types -- I thought it was a significant improvement in C# when that support was added. So, from that perspective, a nullable bool is just like any other nullable value type, and I don't have a problem with it. What I do have a problem with is when the null state is used as a valid state. In my opinion, any nullable type that is null when you need to use it for something should result in an exception. By that definition, "nullable" to me (and when I design databases) means "it's OK if we don't know the value of this type right now, but when we use it for something, it darn well better not be null." The exception to that might be business rules that handle "I don't know." Marc
V.A.P.O.R.ware - Visual Assisted Programming / Organizational Representation Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
-
...but the garbage I've had to look into and fix, well, it's just amazing. 1. Lack of abstraction (makes testing a total PITA) 2. Lack of encapsulation (would be nice to be able to load up the configuration values without hitting a serer that I don't connect to in testing) 3. Absolutely convoluted code for getting something to run on a separate thread (even before
Task.Runthis was basically a 5 liner, not the 100+ lines of drivel I'm wading through.) 4. How many times do I need to xpath the config file to get the same value in the same loop??? 5. Let's instantiate variables and never use them! 6. Let's add debugging that inspects the .NET stack. And not disable it in a release build. 7. Let's load an XSLT transform from a file every time we need to transform something. 8. And maybe XSLT isn't the most efficient? 9. And let's put in comments about "not too pricey performance-wise" for stupid-arsed things and totally ignore the glaring inefficiencies elsewhere. 10. Let's usebool?as a 3 state variable instead of a readable enum. 11. And the list goes on. I am getting sorely disappointed in the code I've had to work with. I have yet to see something decently implemented in this job. It's pretty clear to me that if I were the Trump of the software engineering world, I would cull 90% of them and relegate them to captaining garbage scows. MarcV.A.P.O.R.ware - Visual Assisted Programming / Organizational Representation Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
As I say to my boss: "If you don't want me to refactor, then don't make me look at the code". Always try to remember a few things. You're likely in that code because something isn't right anyway - either a fault or a change request. You're really good at what you do, and that's why you're the one being asked to fix the 'garbage' code. Keep faith in your own abilities, software development is all about confidence. The moment you doubt yourself, you're toast.
