|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Let's go back to kLoC, it's so useful
And why not? But the metric should be:
1) have you implemented the requirement in the least lines of code...
2) and, where applicable, as a re-usable component, and...
3) in a generic enough way that it can handle other use cases...
4) considering possible performance impacts...
5) as well as, where applicable, being thread safe...
6) with a clean separation of concerns...
7) and in a way that makes it easily to replace dependencies as well as being replaceable itself,
8) and did you implement any code contracts...
9) write unit tests for the any complicated stuff...
10) and write some helpful documentation as to why you're solving the problem the way you did.
So:
I guess that's too complicated for most managers to figure out when they do a performance review...
Thus:
Performance reviews are BS anyways, because nobody actually considers 1-10.
Which leads us down the rabbit hole of "peer" performance reviews, something the Holacracy[^] folks try to do. I've never participated in such an environment, so I have no idea if that actually works well. I came close once, but it was Ruby on Rails, and by the time the interview process was over, I was really glad I didn't get the job.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking at the Converge conference in Hong Kong this week, Microsoft's Peggy Johnson revealed that the company will continue to build software for cars rather than create vehicles. Your car has been upgraded. It will reboot in 20 seconds. (Hope you're not on the highway)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm yes, the Microsoft car - where the blue screen of death really means what it says.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
Mobile use, support via WebAssembly, and many imaginative options are in in the works for the popular object-oriented language "Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear"
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: the popular object-oriented language
Python is not an object oriented language. It is, at best, a "method wrapper" language, distinguishing between "functions" and "methods", functions which are wrapped in a class.
Python:
- Method overloading: Nope, because how can you overload a method with different type parameters in languages that are dynamically typed?
- Visibility: Everything is public, unless you think prefixing your class members with __ so that they are name mangled counts as "private"
- Inheritance: In a dynamic language like Python, what's the point? You can simply implement a different duck, the ducks don't have to be derived from the same species. Maybe it sometimes makes it easier to re-use common functionality, but it's little better than a mix-in.
Marc
modified 5-Jun-16 19:13pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Of those points, only Visibility (encapsulation) is really an essential feature of an OO language.
Smalltalk, for example, doesn't support method overloading, and is dynamically typed. It supports Inheritance in much the same way as Python.
I hope you're not going to try and claim that Smalltalk isn't object-oriented?
It may be a better question to consider whether the languages you're more familar with are truly OO, after all Alan Kay (father of Smalltalk) did coin the term.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: (encapsulation) is really an essential feature of an OO language.
True, I new I was sticking my arse out in the wind.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
After a lengthy meeting in March and subsequent discussions, the actual feature list is shaping up to offer C++ developers a lot more hand-holding in modern cloud-based environments. Let me guess: braces and semi-colons?
Maybe they'll finally add the interrobang as an operator?
|
|
|
|
|
Calling a game "hard" would seem to be a matter of personal judgement. Not so, according to an international team of computer scientists. At least that's how they're explaining why they play it all the time
Or:
"But Mom, I'm doing important research!"
|
|
|
|
|
Now, one of the the most advanced AI outfits, Google’s DeepMind, is taking safety measures in case human operators need to “take control of a robot that is misbehaving [that] may lead to irreversible consequences,” which I assume includes but is not limited to killing all humans. "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
|
|
|
|
|
The AI may find this "design flaw" and remove it smoothly with some mock-up
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
If I remember correctly, in the films the problems all started when humans tried to turn it off.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
It is called, in very technical jargon, a "power switch"
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
A new paper demonstrates this surveillance can be pretty easy to pull off, even over the air from a few metres away. Be cautious of people hanging around with parabolic microphones
|
|
|
|
|
In the last couple of weeks there have been a huge number of reports from TeamViewer users that their computers have been hijacked. "Walk right in, sit right down. Baby, let your hair hang down."
|
|
|
|
|
What? This is ridiculous. There should've been a mass outcry of such the blatant security issues the likes of this company has just demonstrated.
Either that, or I just chose a random & old post of @Kent-Sharkey reports and commented on such.
|
|
|
|
|
moo?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
A group of scientists say they want work toward being able to create a synthetic version of the entire human genetic code in the laboratory. "The study of Nature makes a man at last as remorseless as Nature."
Why not? It always works out pretty well in the movies when they try that.
|
|
|
|
|
When do they plan to open Neanderthal Parc ?
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
What is this doing in news forum? I would encourage you to post relevant material otherwise you risk incurring the wrath of the news moderator. :
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always find research relating to the human genome a cause for concern. I am completely in favour of research where there are clear benefits to medical science, but I am not always convinced that research such as this is justified.
Humans are a fallible species, and whilst the scientists involved may be genuinely looking for uses of this research to progress medical science, it can also be used for less than ethical purposes such as creating designer babies, which is one step away from eugenics.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't a bed be more comfortable than a lab bench?
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
How about starting with something a bit simpler?
|
|
|
|