|
We should be told; time for a judicial inquiry.
|
|
|
|
|
Nah. Let's just have a witch hunt.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
CsTreval wrote: It used to be that the really hard working and intelligent people were bumped
up to manager.
Sigh...what fun to be young again.
I suggest you research the "Peter Principle". You will find that the copyright on the primary book that introduced that was 1969.
CsTreval wrote: I knew more about programming and computers than they did.
One thing I knew even in college was that is was really unlikely that I know everything. And with that understanding I found that almost (if not everyone) I have ever met has given me the opportunity to learn something.
CsTreval wrote: Meanwhile, a top paid programmer I know who works for one of the best software
development companies can only type with two fingers and can't even do a copy
paste in Excel!
So there are several possibilities.
1. You do not have any idea what that person actually does.
2. That specific company and/or department is a failure.
3. All companies are like that and thus you will never get a job (because they don't hire people that can program.)
CsTreval wrote: It used to be that the really hard working and intelligent people ...I knew more about programming and computers than they did
I can't be sure but I would suppose that arrogance is one trait that will in fact lead to...
- not getting hired in the first place
- getting fired once hired.
|
|
|
|
|
+5 I agree... to some extent. Being a good coder isn't always enough to get a good salary. The best combination is being a good (at least average) coder and having a level a social awareness, and to have the balls on a job interview. My experience is that having balls and being social is more important to have a good salary than being a good coder. Its enough to be an average coder.
EDIT: You are angry (and sometimes arrogant), but you are on a better way than a hardcore programmer if want good pay - this is also dependent on the place you work at, but in my experience being a very good coder is secondary most of the time. Debating with anger is also a bad habit. If you got angry you lost the match.
modified 14-Jul-12 6:39am.
|
|
|
|
|
CsTreval wrote: Excuse me? I come from a university with one of the highest reputations there
are. We program and work the qualitative way. This isn't one semester. It's my
graduate year. I'm actually going to be an Application Developer. There's only
so far you can get with 'practice' and 'experience'. ... That's why the top engineers get higher ranked
without doing the work. Didn't you ever learn that?
Ahh...so then why do you not already understand how to do it?
Also given that you already understand that it isn't just black and white what makes you think that it can be answered in the completely general way that you asked the question?
CsTreval wrote: There's only so far you can get with 'practice' and 'experience'. Fundamental
concepts and methods are far more important.
Absolute rubbish.
I have been responsible for hiring and interviewing people for more than 15 years and the PRIMARY requirement is experience. Education, even a PHD, has almost zero relevance after five years of real experience and has zero relevance when considering actual problem domain knowledge.
Someone with no actual work experience would need to have a half time mentor for at least six months before they could be expected to be fully productive. True regardless of the school they went to.
CsTreval wrote: Never underestimate the importance of scholar theory.
Nor should one over estimate it. Nor should one think that in the day to day work of creating code that "scholar[ly] theory" has much importance because most of the time it is not relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
CsTreval wrote: I come from a university with one of the highest reputations there are
So do I, even if it's from Romania
CsTreval wrote: I'm actually going to be an Application Developer
So what? I'm a Software Engineer. I don't think it would've got me my job by itself. Being a Software Engineer / Application Developer / Software Architect / [Insert-another-fancy-title-here] counts for nothing in a company that does real work, if you can't back it up with knowledge
CsTreval wrote: There's only so far you can get with 'practice' and 'experience'
Yes, and after only 2 years experience, I've found my teachers suck, and have nothing to do with the current technologies and methodologies, most of them proven to work (AGILE as a methodology for instance, or HTML5/CSS3 as techonlogies. Not to mention that those who taught Java had no idea on how to use the language besides teaching the fundamental algorithms (sorting, searching) and data structures (arrays, lists) in it)
CsTreval wrote: The tons of math and logic theory I had to process before I came to this point. The years of lectures on Software Engineering
Oh yeah, the tons of math, logic, and analog electronics 
Now, I'm not saying they might not be useful, but the chance they are is pretty negligible.
I've been through college too, I even studied pretty hard. Nothing of that ever helped during the first few days of my professional career, while I've banged my head on a wall trying to get Tomcat6 to work on a CentOS. Nothing! Then I've learned that school only teaches you the basics, the rest comes from passion and, most especially, experience. Look at the most prominent guys here (I'm talking OriginalGriff, Dalek Dave, JSOP, and maybe others, who I'm sorry for not mentioning right now). How many of them do you think have strong educational backgrounds? And yet, just look at the stuff this guys post, and the articles they write. That, my friend, comes from experience, and not education. I'll take any of these guys anytime over 90% of my college teachers.
Oh, and to end, you know there's an old saying...
Wiser people that you and I said: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach
Full-fledged Java/.NET lover, full-fledged PHP hater.
Full-fledged Google/Microsoft lover, full-fledged Apple hater.
Full-fledged Skype lover, full-fledged YM hater.
modified 16-Jul-12 6:39am.
|
|
|
|
|
This is code design not a grammar lesson! XD But for some extent your statement is true because some of the nouns usually identify your packages or classes or the data structures you might pack into a single class. Don't rely on methods, use your brain and experience. There is no method that compensates you for not having experience so practice! practice! practice! But on my road learning code design I use the following guidline:
First you have to be able to break down a problem into small pieces, then to break down those pieces into even smaller pieces. This is the most difficult step, you need some coding experience to do this. You have to be able to identify problems and patterns. This way you get a "hierarchy of problems" a "tree of those problems". The root of this tree is your program, some nodes in the tree below the root are packages, and as you go down towards the leaf nodes you will find classes sooner or later. If you break down the problems with enough granulartiy your tree will identify the package and class structure of your program too. Of course you can start this tree from a package or class level if you have to solve only a part of the problems.
Now you have the classes and you have to find out what kind of data, which member variables are needed to solve the problems that belong to a class and you have to put them into the right class, the same is true for the methods that work with that data.
I usually spot out bad code design in a minute, this usually involves code (method(s)) that doesn't work with the member variables of the actual class the method resides in, instead the method uses data and methods that it reaches from other objects. In this case the method should be moved to somewhere else where its most used data resides. If it uses a lot of data from here and there maybe from incoming parameters (or a lot of classes call that method) then it can be put into a helper class as a static helper method.
EDIT: Another bad design is bloat code - huge monolithic classes. In this case the problem the class solves needs to be split into sub-problems and more classes.
modified 14-Jul-12 5:53am.
|
|
|
|
|
It is confusing if you concentrate on one item to the exclusion of all else. Take your example; you have a statement that "a blog entry has to have a title and a body". Okay, I can see where you are going with that, but you're now wondering whether or not you violate SOLID to have a body element AND a title element. This is designing in isolation. You need to consider the other requirements to see what effect they have.
For instance, suppose you have a requirement that states that a title must have more than 20 characters and less than 150 characters. Does this mean that you need to create a separate Title class which encapsulates the rules, or do you make it part of the BlogEntry class? Well, that depends - you might want to create a separate validation engine which is responsible for enforcing the rules, in which case you would probably just use attributes on your BlogEntry properties, so the mechanism for defining HOW to validate the properties is external, but the rules for each element are attached (this is a common technique).
Then you need to consider where your rules are applied. Do you do everything in your UI, or do you abstract to a business rules class? Is your BlogEntry class actually a model instead? Should you use MVC?
The thing I'm trying to get at here is that there is no "one size fits all" solution. As others have said, it's experience, but it is also a case that your start and end point has to be "what do I need to put in to satisfy the requirements?" By all means, consider the use cases - a well architected use case should be a vital part of developing your application because it should tell you how the user will actually use your application. Beyond that, adhering to SOLID is a mix of experience and common sense, and you shouldn't slavishly adhere to something just because someone else has written about how good it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Intelligence without being a third year undergraduate! How the fock did you do that?
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
I probably knicked it from someone clever. And I'm someone who hasn't got a computer degree - largely self taught. I don't think it's done me any harm.
|
|
|
|
|
I got my 'putin' degree only last year - after 25+ years - to find out what's new. Very little is the answer.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
I believe most of it is just fancy names for what we were doing anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
The one thing I found fascinating was Systems Theory[^]. It has nothing to do what you think and is a complete mind fock until you get the little light come on...
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
That looks interesting. I might do some digging around into that.
|
|
|
|
|
It's fun when you look at a problem domain and actually find that the best solution is to not use computers but to go back to a manual solution.
The simplest description is that you look for a single small step to improve the situation, then go back and repeat until you reach an acceptable situation without knowing what the solution will eb when you start. As I said, it's brain fick to start with until you have an epiphany.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
Now to actually give you an alternate answer...
While this is overly complicated for the question:
Body and Title could be considered types of text components and your Post could be a 'Base Object' type that consists of a component list. In this 'silly' system, your 'Post' can easily be given any number of components because Post supports having components that have their own functions.
Why not have the components as members? Well because with this idea of base objects having a list you only have to change whether you are giving the component to the object rather than modifying the member in the class. e.g. I want a new 'StupidEnemy' that has a different 'AIComponent' to the 'Enemy'. I don't have to have a new class for my new type of enemy I simply give them a different AIComponent at instantiation.
I don't think this is a great approach in most cases (As you 'could' end up using a data structure to hold a single component, this seems illogical), I’ve used it a little before and it has its pros and cons but it does mean your code fits SOLID. It works quite well for game development though as it keeps the project tidy (Relative to just using straight composition).
BaseObject post = new Post();
TextComponent Header = new Header("Header");
post.Add(Header);
Post->getComponent("Header").SetMessage("Hello World")
Post->Execute();
/rant I didn't do English at University, it has no real place in a BSc also it's more of a sociology/business idea and while it does occur, I want to aim to have a better work ethic constantly for myself!/endrant
modified 9-Jul-12 16:09pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm attempting automate tests using my Agilent EXA 9010A Signal analyzer. Any suggestions for doing this in Java? I am not a fan of C# and would prefer to use Java
|
|
|
|
|
|
Via the link in the other answer...look at the document tab. Then look at
"X-Series Signal Analyzer Spectrum Analyzer Mode User's and Programmer's Reference"
From there I found the following reference in the summary section
• Using the Windows XP Remote Desktop to connect to the instrument remotely
• Using the Embedded Web Server Telnet connection to communicate SCPI
The first is a possibility however the second would be what I would start with first because it is easy to do telnet. Only question is that does what it suggests and does everything you want.
If it does then you create an API for management FIRST (before doing what ever else you want.) You can either write your own telnet interface or use the Apache Commons Net component.
|
|
|
|
|
i wrote java code to read text file and when i give it word it give me its position .now i want code that when i give it a word the result will be words behind this word in same line
EX: market shop,online,web site-----data of text file in line 1
: market shop,null
when i enter "market shop"&"online" it give me "web site"
but when i enter only "market shop" it give me "null"
|
|
|
|
|
fine. You have done something wrong in there.
This is homework. So please try to solve it yourself.
You can get help for that by posting your code here (format it with the code tags).
Then we might be able to give you a hind where the problem is.
Have you debugged your code?
|
|
|
|
|
yes i debug my code.ok anyway thank you i will solve it by my self
|
|
|
|
|
what i mean that anyone give me an algorithm or idea for writing this code not give me a code ,i already think about it and i have ideas but i want another ideas that more flexible
|
|
|
|
|
algorithm ?
This is basic Java, don't make it rocket science.
Don't get me wrong: We are willing to help you. But it's our basic rule to not post solutions to homework.
|
|
|
|
|
ok and what i mean is not to solve or give me a code just all i want is steps that i applied it in code of course not code syntax .but thank you i working on my code & i will do it by my self
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
