|
My take on this sort of thing is that it's possible to become obsessed with a particular framework and insist on using it, becoming an "evangelist" for this sacred new framework.
On the other hand, it's possible to become obsessed with getting something out as quickly as possible with code hacked together from the recesses of Google.
Neither of these extreme approaches is a good idea - if a framework helps then use it while being aware of its limitations and allowing yourself some slack as you probably have a deadline to meet. On the other hand writing poorly thought out code is going to cause you a headache and worse in a few month's time.
I don't think there is a clear boundary of where the emphasis should go as you don't have infinite time, in which to write the perfect code, nor do you have omniscience with which to see every possibility that may not be covered by your code(even code that gets into aircraft is buggy!).
If you can't look back on code that is a year old and think "I would probably not do things that way nowadays" - you are probably not learning from your experience.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks all for sharing your opinion! I will try to stay away from this kind of decoupling!
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
1. I usually...oh look, shiny!
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); }
Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
|
|
|
|
|
Initiative comes to thems that wait.
- Alex
|
|
|
|
|
- CodeProject
- CodeProject
- CodeProject
- CodeProject
- CodeProject
- CodeProject
- CodeProject
- CodeProject
- CodeProject
- Girlfriend
|
|
|
|
|
Whose girlfriend doesn't read CP?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Whose girlfriend doesn't read CP?
Even if she did, she'd laugh and probably agree!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
She sounds like a real gem. Lucky you 
|
|
|
|
|
0.Girlfriend
1.CodeProject
2.CodeProject
3.CodeProject
4.CodeProject
5.CodeProject
6.CodeProject
7.CodeProject
8.CodeProject
9.CodeProject
FTFY
Words to the wise: Always ensure that your girlfriend comes first. 
|
|
|
|
|
[Space reserved for later response]
|
|
|
|
|
SO WRONG! Try this one:
Reason #0.
|
|
|
|
|
1. Should this list be zero based? Well on the one hand it is a technology site but on the other hand it is mainly for a human audience.
10. Wait - doesn't that preclude doing a "10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary.." derivative joke? On the plus side, if it doesn't then my list is complete.
11. Not specifying if the list is zero based or not makes an "off by one" error more likely.
|
|
|
|
|
Procrastination -- there's a nap for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Either do, or do not, because you won't get around to it tomorrow. - Yoda
|
|
|
|
|
...we can live safe in the knowledge that there'll be no more Virgins up there left for the Suicide Bombers.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you thought why these virgins are still virgins... 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is the correct answer.
Every time I hear of the whole idea, I imagine 72 people that are something of a cross between Richard Stallman and Garth (of Wayne's world) all clutching their Unix programming manuals. 
|
|
|
|
|
and they'll all be there tuned up and ready to play when I go.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.2.2 Beta I told my psychiatrist that I was hearing voices in my head. He said you don't have a psychiatrist!
|
|
|
|
|
Are you talking about the rockers or the virgins?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Are you talking about the rockers or the virgins?
Yes
New version: WinHeist Version 2.2.2 Beta I told my psychiatrist that I was hearing voices in my head. He said you don't have a psychiatrist!
|
|
|
|
|
If it's truly Heaven, then they're virgins no matter how many times you've hit it.
Giggidy!
|
|
|
|
|
Not since Lemmy got there.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
9 Billion? not sure why this is shocking to me, but it is shocking to me.
"S. 2340 would amend federal laws related to managing the federal government’s licenses for information technology software. The bill would require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue a directive to each federal agency to develop a comprehensive policy for software licensing including a complete inventory of software licenses and to develop a mechanism to track, maintain, and analyze software use.
Most of the provisions of the bill would codify and expand current policies and practices of the federal government. OMB has reported that agencies spent about $9 billion in 2015 on software licenses. The Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) recently directed agencies to acquire and manage software in a more coordinated way. In addition, the Enterprise Software Category Team, managed by the General Services Administration, the Department of Defense, and OMB, is developing government-wide agreements for obtaining software licenses. Because such efforts to better manage software licenses are already underway, CBO estimates that the bill would not substantially change those efforts, and that implementing S. 2340 would have no significant net impact on the federal budget over the next five years. The bill could affect direct spending by agencies not funded through annual appropriations; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. CBO estimates, however, that any net change in spending by those agencies would not be significant. Enacting S. 2340 would not affect revenues."
S. 2340, MEGABYTE Act of 2015 | Congressional Budget Office[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
