|
Resolving cultural barriers between developers and operations is the biggest obstacle. Merging two salaries into one? Yeah, I can see why 'everybody' wants DevOps.
|
|
|
|
|
Survey also finds that customer experience is now the top benefit of Internet of Things deployment. Look to the right. Look to the left. If you don't see any Things, that means you're it.
|
|
|
|
|
My shirt is typing this because my pants forgot to charge themselves.
I am so in on the IoT that it hurts!!!
Literally. The circuits in these pants are jabbing me... everywhere! 
|
|
|
|
|
3 * 0 = 
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
|
|
|
|
|
The National Security Agency has released a new open-source program for data network interoperability. Altruism (noun): the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
|
|
|
|
|
PewResearch has announced the results of its Web IQ study today, revealing that most Americans can’t recognize Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and don’t know what Moore’s Law relates to. But then again, they could probably identify Jude Law
|
|
|
|
|
I find it troubling that two out of 12 questions relate specifically to Facebook. 
|
|
|
|
|
Moore's Law states that number of idiot Facebook users doubles every two years.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like more people would recognize Marissa Mayer (Yahoo! CEO) than Sandberg.
And it seems like the article would've mentioned Mayer instead.
But, maybe, the article was trying to push Sandberg's book, Lean In - amazon link[^]
I think Mayer needs to write a book. 
|
|
|
|
|
"The cost of making a political documentary halves every 18 months."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's great and all, but what really is Docker, and why are containers suddenly such a hot topic? Without getting lost in the weeds, and without breaking out the diagrams, let's take a look. "Explanations are clear but since no one to whom a thing is explained can connect the explanations with what is really clear, therefore clear explanations are not clear."
|
|
|
|
|
Code that has been produced in the dark is always a code smell. "You can't start a fire without a spark"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely never deal with absolutes!
(All my work is solo. Does it stink? He's free to point out the issues or change his absolute.)
|
|
|
|
|
(author here)
I received a couple of comments about solo developers. It's true that it's a different scenario. While writing the article, I was targetting in my mind teams of developers when one suddenly goes solo for some obscure reasons, which is a different case than yours.
Anyways... Even though you are solo, I hope that you still have a chance to work on code that has some visibility, whether it be an open source project that you work on as a hobby on your spare time or anything else. Feedbacks and criticism can be very helpful as far as experience is concerned.
[edit] just looked at the C++ articles you published. You know what I'm talking about.
Cheers
Nick
modified 25-Nov-14 3:48am.
|
|
|
|
|
The code behind those articles was written without input, and 'in the dark' per your definition. If it doesn't stink, your article needs revised because you have dealt in absolutes that aren't true. If it does stink, you may leave your article intact, but tell me where it stinks. Personally, I feel your article is full of BS, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you even read the article?? I never said that coding in the dark == coding without input. Never.
Just read the article: "Don’t code alone in the dark. Talk about your code. Share it, ask your peers to look at it, to discuss it, to criticize it"
When you publish your articles online, you are talking about your code. You are sharing it. You are asking your peers to look at it, to discuss it, to criticize it. And you received feedbacks, you had a bunch of comments. That's the whole purpose. That's how great code is made.
You might want to at least read the first 3 lines of an article before saying it is BS.
|
|
|
|
|
I read the full article before I labeled it BS. The code in my articles hasn't significantly changed due to feedback in quite some time. In fact, the last article change I made[^] was because of something I caught myself, even though many eyes had been on it. (And the changelog items of another[^] weren't due to any external feedback.) So yes, BS, unless you point out where I'm wrong, and my code stinks.
To state this another way, per your article's qualifications all of my code has been written 'alone.' You pretty much state code can't be good until it has been changed by an external review process of some kind. Since my code hasn't been changed because of external reviews, it must stink per your outlook. If you point out where it stinks I might agree with you.
But even if you point out stinky aspects, I still think you need to change your article because somewhere out there is a coder who is self-motivated enough to do things better than average on their own, You just haven't met them yet, and by painting things in such absolute terms you close your eyes to that possibility. As I said initially, "Absolutely never deal with absolutes!" Life is not black and white, and dealing with it in such terms is not very wise.
|
|
|
|
|
I never saw a line of your code, but I made most of my code alone-in-the-dark...And a good part of them shining like diamond...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how you can continue to argue that way, having yourself written many things online.
What my article simply states is that when you write things that others will see, you will be more careful than when writing code that noone will see. It's just a a natural thing to do, it doesn't just apply to code and it is an absolute truth. Your article may not have had many changes, but it's in part due to the fact that you made sure it was of quality before posting it online. When we write code for others, it is always better than writing code for ourselves.
The term "code smell" might not be the best one. But the truth stays: if you know from the start that more than one person will be involved with your code, it will be of higher quality. period. And I'm not saying that people need to be involved in the input. They can be involved any time: through the design process, after code is written, years after on github, etc. Many eyes are better than 2. There's nothing revolutionary about what I wrote. It's common sense, just not a natural thing to do for us coders.
modified 25-Nov-14 13:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
nbize wrote: Many eyes are better than 2.
Yes, but writing for many eyes does not invoke the code-validation of those eyes.
nbize wrote: just not a natural thing to do for us coders
Go tell Linus, I'll wait here.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
That's one of the worse example you could have come up with... Linus does not work alone. He always talks about the code "his team" produces, not himself. If Linus had not opened up his code, it would have never had that impact. There's even a law named after him that describes the benefits of getting code out as a team: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus's_Law[^]
It's not just programming. It's any field. Einstein was not alone. Jobs & Gates were not alone. The best writers still get a bunch of proof-reading, etc. etc. There is no one-man show in success.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
