|
I worked at a place where my boss called us the weenies and a group of us was known as a gaggle - a gaggle of weenies. It was amusing.
We also had three classifications of engineers - volts, bolts, and bytes : EE, ME, and SE.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Since we don't have consent on naming and a group of software engineers could never agree on a common name, how about a Nota? A group of None Of The Above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest 'Coven', most people view programming as a black art anyway
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest 'Coven', most people view programming as a black art anyway
RH
|
|
|
|
|
|
a Scrumbag
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also thought last night about :
A Closure
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
A Religion.
Spaces or tabs? Linux or Windows? ...
|
|
|
|
|
A Schism of programmers?
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
It really depends upon their particular breed (e.g., a flock of geese but a murder of crows).
One that fits well is "An Infestation of Agile Developers".
Ravings en masse^ |
---|
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
APL programmers: a confusion
C or C++ programmers: a corruption
C# or Java programmers: a delegation
FORTRAN programmers: a computation
COBOL programmers: a company
BASIC programmers: an asylum
LISP programmers: a list (of course)
Pascal programmers: a school
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Can't believe no one threw in a "Heap".
|
|
|
|
|
The responses are very funny unfortunately someone might take this seriously so we need to let identity stay in the political area of our society and not let it enter our profession.
Such a sad state but it is what it is for now
BTW I would prefer a Dorkal
Buckrogerz
|
|
|
|
|
A Hive. Bugs swarm out of hives...
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... what about a Bitset?
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
A collection of good programmers could be a cluster.
A collection of bad programmers would be a clusterf**k.
|
|
|
|
|
How about a Byte? Each one in a group is a Bit. If there are more than 8 in the group, it's a Word of Software Engineers, more than 16 is a DoubleWord (or DWord), more than 32 is a QuadWord (or QWord), etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, except that you can inherit multiple interfaces and you still can't instantiate one without an implementation.
Architecturally, they still have highly different uses.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Sure, except that you can inherit multiple interfaces and you still can't instantiate one without an implementation.
Depending on how it is defined, it is possible to inherit an abstract class. Two cases in point are List<T> and Dictionary<object,object> . After all, generics are, for all practical purposes, abstract classes.
Quote:
Architecturally, they still have highly different uses.
About that, I agree, so why muddy the waters with this new construct that is half interface and half virtual method?
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
David A. Gray wrote: After all, generics are, for all practical purposes, abstract classes.
I really don't agree with that.
I think in general the purpose of really surface-level default implementations give you options for interacting with those implementations or to give a default error. That's mostly it, or at least that's all I'd use it for. I don't see that as muddying.
I think it will result in much more composable code, and that's a valid purpose.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: David A. Gray wrote:
After all, generics are, for all practical purposes, abstract classes.
I really don't agree with that.
Please clarify.
1) You cannot directly implement a generic class.
2) The class provides default implementations of its methods to all instances.
How, then, is a generic class anything more, nor less, than a specialized type of abstract base class?
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|