|
jschell wrote: In a recent case a static analyzer required re-engineering a simple factory pattern that was using a switch statement. The re-engineered effort passed review (not by me) that was done by creating a dictionary which instantiated all of the classes controlled by the factory...every single time.
That sounds like a candidate for the Weird and Wonderful. But my main comment: F*** that!
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like making the dictionary reference static would have fixed it. The analyzer was probably afraid of "globals".
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: Sounds like making the dictionary reference static would have fixed it.
Nope.
Point of a factory is to create a new instance each time. A static dictionary would not do that.
The implementation, which the static analyzer passed, was to create a new dictionary and populate it will all new instances, each time the method was calle.
|
|
|
|
|
If we ran FxCop on our main application where I work, it would probably explode!
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
...on Bob?
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
His face looks like a painted egg though.
|
|
|
|
|
They were on his head, until his weekly visit to Madam Rita.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I don't quite understand is why doesn't the software combine the pitch of the aircraft from the AI together with the vertical speed from the VSI and the airspeed to calculate whether the aircraft is at a dangerous angle of attack for a given airspeed.
I also wonder if a number of the software engineers protested and said it was a really bad idea but were overruled by management.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
It's in the comments.
If they had taken data from more than one sensor in account they would have needed a procedure for how to handle contradicting sensor information, with a following change of the manual that would have turned it into a new model. With associated costs.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks - so basically they sacrificed the safety of the passengers to save money?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I believe it is actually worse than that. Apparently, there is an MCAS override system, operated by a cockpit switch for use in case of malfunction. However, as it was not required for certification, it became optional extra at considerable cost - so there was no way to turn it off unless you paid for a safety feature that wasn't necessary for safety according to Boeing and the USFAA.
Ransomware, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
I had heard about the switch but i did not know that it was an 'optional extra'.
I wonder if the jets that crashed had that switch.
I smells a bit like the banking scandal where banks were seen as too big to fail, Boeing and Airbus being the main suppliers of passenger aircraft perhaps they are seen as too important to modern transport for their aircraft to be grounded.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: I wonder if the jets that crashed had that switch.
I know for a fact that the Lion Air 'plane didn't, as the director of aircraft maintenance for Lion is a personal friend, who retired two years ago, and he told me so.
|
|
|
|
|
Um, so you're not familiar with US corporations?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll, continue, to drive.
|
|
|
|
|
However, as he points out in the article, cars use drive-by-wire systems too.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Traditionally we visited the tulip fields in the Noord-Oost polder, my favourite tulip was present again: Shared album - Google Photos[^]
This year not a lot of Japanese tourists, but mostly Germans.
Did they follow me after my visit to Aachen I wonder
|
|
|
|
|
I went for a bike ride around Lisse yesterday. Lots of Japanese tourists, boy friends dutifully photographing their ladies for Instagram and for the first time in NL I was fearful of the traffic while cycling. Flowers were nice but I wouldn't do it again on a public holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
So that's where the Japanese were, hope they didn't trample too much on the flowers
The region where I was, near Emmeloord, is a lot less touristical.
|
|
|
|
|
NotJosh wrote: for the first time in NL I was fearful of the traffic while cycling This was your first time cycling?
This Tweet by Teunkie[^] says it all:
Crossing the street in Amsterdam:
look left
look right
look left
look right
look up
look down
look left one more time
look into the 4th, 5th and 6th dimensions
look into the past and the future
look into the souls of your unborn children
cross
still get hit by a bike
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to avoid Amsterdam at all costs
|
|
|
|
|
#3 is spectacular!
/ravi
|
|
|
|