|
OMG!! Pass the mind-bleach!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
OK - Mind Bleach[^]
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I knew what is was going to be and yet I still went there!
You b&^$@$*&! 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Took your mind off of Melissa Lynn tho' ...
My work here is done. 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
...All That She Wants[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, and also skip the burger part.
What's wrong with a plain bacon sandwich?
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
My local one gets it perfectly crispy without burning it. 
|
|
|
|
|
rjmoses wrote: I do a lot of development, migrating, porting, etc., in different environments, different systems, different languages, different versions,....get the idea? I have specialized over the years in doing weird stuff.
Good! I got a PHD by asking questions about things that everyone else assumed, so that seemed weird at the time, but I was right to question the assumptions, it turns out they were wrong.
The weird problems are the most interesting.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
Never neglect the "trivial" roots of an equation.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Weird problems are the most fun, most satisfying, but usually take more time than the budget allows.
Result: People take shortcuts because somebody is crawling all over them to "get the job done".
I, like many people, am inherently lazy. But I work very hard at being lazy efficiently. I do not like solving the same problems over and over. I do like solving a problem--once! The second and subsequent times are a waste of my time.
I will never, ever, buy a self-driving car with the current state of software development.
|
|
|
|
|
My ex-wife has a big endian.
A REALLY big endian.
In fact, it's so big, she counteracts the effect of the moon on local tide tables.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
When she sits around the house, she sits aaa-rrrr-ooo-uuuu-nnnn-dddd the house.
|
|
|
|
|
and THAT's why she's not getting your mustang, the shocks won't hold up.
|
|
|
|
|
Once you start writing significantly sized software automatic conversions are the last thing you want. It's a mine field of errors waiting to happen, IMO.
As is often the case in line, you can sort of pick one, easy or good. You can't really have both unless it's a fairly modest undertaking. When it gets serious, the old saying of measure twice, cut once really applies. The time you spend being very specific to the compiler about what you want to happen will save you endless woe.
This is one of the things that really makes me shake my head at modern C++ where people are using 'auto' all over the place.
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
rjmoses wrote: What's your thoughts?
After pondering this post all day, I finally came up with a response.
IDIC[^] you must learn and become one with.
(Argh, a Star Trek and Star Wars reference in one sentence.)
Latest Article - Azure Function - Compute Pi Stress Test
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
A colleague was just complaining about a new language+library that he was using for big data.
The complaint:
Too many "magical" conversions were taking place under the covers. Often processing the data in non-optimal ways, and not an easy way to force better ways to process it because of poor library design.
Per dates and formats. Dates/DateTimes in codes should be some sort of numeric type (possibly wrapped) and always in UTC. As someone else mentioned, display of dates (including timezones) should be a user preference or a replaceable component that mimics being a user preference.
|
|
|
|
|
I faced a similar problem just recently. The solution was to let the compiler handle the endianness. Integers, Chars (multibyte/Unicode in that context), all work the same way in the same language.
I don't cast/convert between integers and chars because the one is numbers, the other is characters, letters. If a conversion is needed, the compiler offers conversion functions that work the same independent of the platform.
Same for data declarations, in C(++), a uint16_t is unambiguous. Across languages however, don't see how that's supposed to work. What's even the point of piping a C source file into a Delphi compiler or vise versa?
This technique naturally results in my tools behaving the same on every platform the compiler offers.
Your post reminds me on a nightmare from a coworker I fixed a while ago. He was parsing a protocol with the bytestream containing, amongst other things, integers. The protocol is LE, the system the parser's running on is LE (Windows x86-64), all things work splendidly. For 1, 2 and 4 byte-integers that is. Just cast it! And to parse 3-byte integers, he built a monster of bit shifts and whatnot.
I've replaced his horrible mess with somewhat simple code that initializes the result to 0 and then adds byte by byte multiplying it accordingly. Viola, problem solved, function is simple and works for an arbitrary number of bytes.
|
|
|
|
|
Your 3 byte integer problem is exactly the kind of work-around that causes problems. I like your solution to the LE problem--simple and directly understandable.
But, what if we didn't have to think about it? What if the variable could be defined as "3 byte little endian integer" and the conversion to/from machine requirements took place automatically on all future references? How could something like that be implemented at the language, compiler or machine level?
I cannot tell you how many times I've seen "char" definitions used inappropriately when a "byte" definition would make more sense. Or things like:
"memcpy( (char *) &structa, (char *) &structb, 100 );"
(And if someone says they have never done something like that, I say "BULL!". They've done it one way or another in whatever language except perhaps LISP or SNOBOL).
Just thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
But we already have that! Let's forget the 3-byte-integer for a moment, that's rather specific to that protocol and usually not needed. When I work with a int32_t (a rather common type), I don't have to care which endianness the underlying system uses. The compiler takes care of everything! Same goes for, let's say, uintptr_t. I don't have to care about endianness, bitness, none of that. The compiler does it for me. Well, I of course have to work with the compiler, but your world, the one where the programmer doesn't have to care, is already there.
The other topic here is that people will always find a way to circumvent the compiler and shoot themselves in the foot.
There's languages that make that easier or harder, C is the worst offender I've ever met (save for assembly, but that's in a league of it's own). C doesn't even have a byte type! A char is a byte in C, you can't blame the programmer (except for possibly poor choice of C as a tool). Switch the language. C# or Delphi on the other hand, those compilers yell at you when you're doing questionable things. And if that thing in question may work just fine while still remaining questinable, you'll at least get a warning.
Feel free to yell BULL, by the way. I've never done such a thing because the question is not whether it'll blow up in my face but a mere when. It will blow up sooner or later.
Fun fact: I've now spent about two weeks fixing a binary communication layer. Some predecessor of mine thought that using strings, data structures designed for text, where binary information is processed, would be a splendid idea. And then came Unicode. Trying to convert 99h to a Unicode string member yields 3Fh and some other byte I've forgotten. I bet it was a C programmer who grew up in the 60s riding the "Learned it once, never relearn"-mentality. Converted all of this nonsense to TArray<Byte> (Delphi nomenclature) and stuff works now.
I still wonder whether your topic is about programming in general C in particular as you seem insistent on issues that are long solved by several programming languages (granted, both Delphi and C# still allow you to shoot yourself in the foot, but you gotta fight hard against the compiler to do that).
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds just like VB6 to me. I still can't figure out why the "elitists" hate it so much. Other than the name, of course.
If you don't like "GoTo" don't use it.
Slow Eddie
|
|
|
|
|
You and every other quality technician...
Seriously though, the problem is that as a profession we have no real enforced standards. Microsoft attempted to be a standard bearer in the 1990s and early 2000s but everyone complained and now we have the morass that technicians are just starting to rightly complain about.
The other issue is that we have too many technicians in our ranks that are too eager to promote their own vision of things at the drop of a hat since using a tool that may be one or more years old may not be cool.
First the major organizations destroyed the vital functions of IT development and then the technical community got on board and started doing the job for them.
Now you have aberrations like MVC replacing Web Forms when it was already available and no one on the Microsoft side of things was interested until that company promoted its own version of MVC (most likely a direct copy of the original).
Now you have JavaScript as a major language though it is a major headache to code with.
Now you have Agile and DevOps, which in reality are diametrically opposed to quality software engineering standards.
And now you have new tool-sets being introduced on a daily basis by anyone who thinks they know what they are doing.
In short, the entire profession is a complete mess.
And it ain't going to get better in the current economic environments of barbaric capitalism...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
You said it all when you said "the entire profession is a mess."
That's why I'm asking the question.
|
|
|
|
|
I feel your pain.
Here is the dilemma: Ease of use for the programmer.
As a programmer, I don't want to declare:
int4,int8,int16. The concept was that int was the DEFAULT machines bitness, which allowed it to move across platform. In memory this is great. Reading/writing to disk, created the Endian problem.
Then when you are not looking you get coercion of types, etc. Add in signed/unsigned, and pretty soon you realize you need a completely Object Based system.
To fix what?
Write once test everywhere?
I feel your pain, but see no solution outside of custom managing types that go into and out of some kind of storage!
|
|
|
|
|
Write once, run everywhere.
How many times have you heard a senior management type say "We need it to run on Windows laptops for Accounting but Marketing uses Macs and Engineering uses Linux. And by the way, can you make it accessible from my phone?"
If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that, I would make Bill Gates and Warren Buffet combined look like paupers.
|
|
|
|
|
That's why the DOCKER concept was so exciting to me, to be honest.
UCSD Pascal had a runtime. Under DOS it was dog slow, but the idea was basically a VM...
It ran on Linux and DOS the same, and anywhere else they ported that too, if memory serves me.
Imagine a world where (X-windows tried this), you run your application, and the GUI attaches to it!
Meaning you need only configure standard IO parameters.
Now, this was the beginning of EVERY COBOL program (remember: Environment Division, etc).
We have evolved really far, and we are getting places.
The one upside of the web was a "Standard" GUI available to program to.
Making things like Proton or Docker with a port to do things workable across platforms.
And I see that is where we seem to be going.
But like Scotty in Star Trek said "The fancier the plumbing, the bigger the problems" (or some such)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
