|
I find application-level frameworks to be a huge waste of time. Invariably they don't do what I need or want and shoehorning my code to work with them is nearly impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been saying that for years, particularly regarding front-end development. But all the "kids" want something they can put on their resume. And that's about the only reason all these frameworks exist. The "must have experience" - "must get experience in" circle jerk in this absurd world of software developers and managers.
|
|
|
|
|
Once a software team reaches a certain size, application frameworks are needed to prevent superfluous diversity, which makes it hard for applications to interact. But unless you know that a commercial framework is a good fit, it's advisable to develop the framework internally so that it can evolve as needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly that's something where common sense and good practices are needed. And most of us already know how scarce they are in such big size teams / companies.
It can /should work, but usually doesn't.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Not doing it is a principal cause of technical debt. And sadly, you're right that it usually doesn't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
It's usually a versioning problem. Changing to a major release of your favorite framework demands a full regression test, and most teams don't have the time to perform such a test on a large app that's been under significant development for any length of time.On apps that are in "maintenance mode", the bean counters won't approve the time needed to update and regression test, so there you are.
The thing I don't like about frameworks is that the various components within a given framework are not discreet enough to carve out (Telerik is REALLY bad about this). Nine times out of ten, I don't want/need anything that resembles the need to use an entire framework.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
#realJSOP wrote: Nine times out of ten, I don't want/need anything that resembles the need to use an entire framework.
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
If using any framework or library, create your own intermediary or wrapper for just the features you need.
It will be easier to dump the third party piece later, and you will know exactly the features you need in the replacement.
|
|
|
|
|
Insider said an excerpt of a US Army report on a "recent" field test dictated to it by an unnamed employee included a soldier who tested the tech saying, "The devices would have gotten us killed." That's how you know it's working
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: excerpts of this report, included that the device's glow from the display was visible from hundreds of meters away, which could give away the position of the wearer
Obviously designed by someone with absolutely NO experience in either war or hunting.
Monitor glow: great for programmers, terrible for war fighters.
Not everything in the world needs a HUD.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
"which could give away"
Could? Seriously, could? lmao. Everyone has low light vision devices now.
I remember when DOOM first came out. It used some sort of novel graphics engine that rendered the display. Within 5 minutes of playing the game, I was ready to barf.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
A very common problem encountered in most program code is high complexity. To deal with this, a great alternative is functional programming—an excellent paradigm that helps programmers to write code that is less susceptible to errors. What's the big deal? I write functions
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't we hear about this with Object Oriented Programming, Structured Programming, etc.? Different programming paradigms support different environments. Using the wrong paradigm for the environment leads to excessively complex code with the attendant bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: A very common problem encountered in most program code is high complexity. To deal with this, a great alternative is functional programming
Wow, what a total miss on how to deal with complexity.  Complexity exists regardless of the programming language, and a programming language does not address complexity. What he means by "complexity" in his post is better termed "elegancy" though some may argue that => this => that => thar => wherefore art thou Romeo => dead is not elegant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The thing that makes sense to me is the immutable data.
Most errors I see is where someone, somewhere changed an object's state which was not anticipated elsewhere.
Same thing could happen with immutable data as well, but it would be easier to track back to where something went wrong.
I could see some higher memory use, especially if dealing with large datasets.
For people that like Test Driven Development, functional is a good way to go.
Once the algorithm is proven, it should be solid and not need to worry about weird state issues.
|
|
|
|
|
I have always asked "how would you do something like a word processing program in a functional manner?" The only response I've heard makes me think it would be very difficult, because the main document would have more and more states as each addition/revision was made. Each change basically creates a new main document. An 'undo' function would probably be easier than many other methods, but that by itself isn't enough to convince me...
|
|
|
|
|
englebart wrote: The thing that makes sense to me is the immutable data.
In multi-threaded applications, immutable data makes it a lot easier to debug and avoids synchronization performance penalties and the related timing bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
Employers need to find a better way of using offices for hybrid working, says Slack, after a new survey suggested workers spend up to four hours on video calls. We should have an all-hands meeting to discuss
Multi-hour, of course (with the first 1/2 hour getting everyone settled and microphones muted)
|
|
|
|
|
During the annual Ignite conference, Microsoft showed a weird-looking (some even say it is cursed) screenshot of Windows 11 with a radical shell redesign. Maybe next they could have it run away from the mouse cursor?
Not having seen this presentation, I'd bet that it was a "simulation" and not really Windows. But I'm frequently wrong (as you all know too well). Personally, I'd have this in my "no, no, NO" category.
|
|
|
|
|
The Synthetic Party in Denmark is dedicated to following a platform churned out by an AI, and its public face is a chatbot named Leader Lars. "This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace."
It couldn't be worse, could it?
|
|
|
|
|
Can't be any worse than the Natural Stupidity now in politics.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote:
"This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace war."
That would be worse.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: original
Kent Sharkey wrote: A is for Armageddon, brought by SkyNet.
B is for Battery, soon to be your job.
C is for Computer, your new overlord
And y'all can do the rest.
Challenge accepted!
D and E are for Dumb Elephant, the kind of person who hypes AI.
F is for Failure, the future of AI startups.
G is for Garbage, what they are actually peddling.
H is for Huckster, what all of them are.
I is for Inane, what true believers are.
J is for Joke, what the rest of us think of them.
K is for Kill, Skynet likes this.
L is for Ludicrous, what they are claiming.
M is for Manure, AI smells like this.
N is for Nope, what reality has to say.
O is for Orwellian, where it's all going.
P is for Prison, what the world will turn into.
Q is for Quack, not just for medicine.
R is for "Really?", how all claims should be addressed.
S is for Suckers, what the people funding the startups are.
T is for Tattered, like their connection to reality.
U is for Unlikely, which is putting it kindly.
V is for Vomit, what you probably expected me to reply with.
W is for Worthless, the future of their stock options.
X is for Xterminate, Skynet says hello again.
Y is for YHGTBSM, an appropriate response to the hucksters.
Z is for Zoo, the best we can hope for from out future overlords.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing 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
|
|
|
|
|
I regret I can only upvote this once. I may have to create a bunch of new accounts to do better.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
