|
|
We don't do automated unit testing (GASP! OH THE HUMANITIES!). Frankly, given the scope of this code, if we were to run tests during the build, builds would take days.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like the job I had a few years ago; 2 million line codebase, image processing 'unit' 500,000 LOC (C++), and I had to build and test the entire unit in each attempt at an iteration.
The sole advantage was that the mod was to produce an offline test, so it was supposed to be run offline. Otherwise it would have been mounted on a one tonne machine in the lab. (Which was how I generated the offline data).
In the end I had 20,000 lines of additional code distributed in thousands of locations(no decoupling here), and it all worked.
Merging a build into a release took a week and had to go through the build captain. If you fluffed source control your mods didn't make it in for months. 
|
|
|
|
|
This current project is pretty small, I've worked on ones where running the system tests took ~90 minutes and screwing something up in that one was more of a pain.
|
|
|
|
|
This happened a lot at my previous company. After installing a TFS Build Server and configuring all checkins as gated we never had that problem again. If you break the build your code just comes back to you. Everybody hated this in the beginning, but once they realized that everything worked when getting latest they warmed up to the idea. This was a great way to resolve the "it builds on my machine" problem.
My plan is to live forever ... so far so good
modified 12-Dec-13 2:51am.
|
|
|
|
|
We don't put 'code' in control right away.
After build, there is dogfooding. Then there is a test plan.
You can back it up in any number of secure places, but until it passes tests it doesn't go to Valhalla. 
|
|
|
|
|
We considered gated builds and reckoned that given the pace of development it would cause us more pain in merge conflicts than it would gain us in keeping the build green. We're a small team that's pretty good at build discipline so we don't have any serious issues in this vein.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here. It's unusual for someone to break the build, and not traumatic when they do.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: NoFlo
Pepto Bismol[^] is good for that.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, that kinda sucks...
I've been working on something similar called VisualScript for some time now. Its integrated into one of my products but I've been working on version 2 which will be stand-alone.
VisualScript Editor (Test Environment)[^]
Seems to be almost exactly what NoFlo is, except in Version 1 you could not edit the code inside the blocks, Version 2 will have that ability.  Guess I should have done a KickStarter.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice!  
There's also VS Code Maps[^] and Visustin[^] out there.
P.S. - The competition might be good for you if you can outdo them in some way. Another scenario is that they might buy you out.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice looking design !
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over the years, I have seen many attempts at graphic-widgets-linked-by-lines visual programming environments, often accompanied by a kind of social-movement enthusiastically proclaiming them the next avatar in the long-line of "saviors of code" from Countess Ada and Babbage, Turing and von Neumann, Grace Hopper and Gordon Moore, to Alan Kay, Adele Goldberg, and Terry Winograd, etc.
The problem with all of them, imho, is that once you get a certain level of complexity: if you show enough detail to reveal a meaningful level of information you get a dense plumbing diagram that is ... well ... spaghetti; or, if you abstract the detail away into visual-placeholders that encapsulate/lead to other diagrams, you get far too shallow a picture of structure/flow.
I do think that people have very different cognitive styles, and that some people are much more naturally "attuned" to complex visual representations than others, just as some programmers are almost "constitutionally" top-down conceptualizers/implementors, and others are bottom-up.
I'm open-minded, and I will take a gander at ... and follow the evolution of ... No-Flo, but I'm also a bit skeptical, by temperament: possibly just an outcome of too many moons' mileage on the jelly in the skull.
"What Turing gave us for the first time (and without Turing you just couldn't do any of this) is he gave us a way of thinking about and taking seriously and thinking in a disciplined way about phenomena that have, as I like to say, trillions of moving parts.
Until the late 20th century, nobody knew how to take seriously a machine with a trillion moving parts. It's just mind-boggling." Daniel C. Dennett
|
|
|
|
|
Seyfert's Sextet[^]
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Cool, mind you I'm missing an L from the bottom right of the Pic (something my end, or do you get that as well?)... did you see the Darleks earth shot earlier...
|
|
|
|
|
I see that as well, I think NASA have removed the part that had their super secret moonbase space ship.
|
|
|
|
|
All looks good to me.
DDs pic was excellent.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
One the page for me it is still missing, in the original and the blow up, sneaky NASA them there Aliens I tell Ye!! 
|
|
|
|
|
That means it's an old image. The original (and second generation?) Wide Field and Planetary Camera worked around limitations in CCD resolution by using a beam splitter to direct light onto 4 separate cameras; one of which had a 2x magnifier placed in the light path. As a result one corner of every image is smaller like that because 3/16ths of the area were never imaged in the first place. The single higher resolution CCD was large enough to fit planets in full; operating the other 3 sensors at a wider field of view instead allowed for imaging larger objects at once (or taking fewer images for a mosaic) as long as the positioning was chosen correctly. In many cases they'd put the most interesting part on the high res CCD and use the other 3 to get a wider view of part of the surrounding area.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
From the link: the prominent condensation on the upper left is likely not a separate galaxy at all, but a tidal tail of stars flung out by the galaxies' gravitational interactions.
A phrase like this still boggles my mind. 
Nice pic.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd give anything to be out there. Anything.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
As long as I might get back home sometime, I agree.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
