|
Why did he assume you eat tofu?
|
|
|
|
|
Because I'm a vegetarian, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not, I'm assuming he doesn't eat chicken.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
>> For Sander; works equally amazing with (salted) tofu
Anyhow, I love chicken and tofu. all good, IMHO. 
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote:
Anyhow, I love chicken and tofu. all good, IMHO.
It was part in jest, and it is not "all good"; it depend on who's cooking. I would generally eat meat every day, boiling it until dead, dry and safe. Then someone explained the basics of cooking (took two years!) and things changed.
When I buy chicken, I go for the thighs because fat gives taste, and wrap it in bacon; most children will prefer the breast, since it doesn't contain fat, bloodvessels or sinews. That's where I was surprised by tofu; it has a similar texture, and is more welcome than real chicken it seems. Not really vegetarian, since I crumbled a chicken-broth cube over it. Deep fried in tempura, and you have something that tastes like a chicken-nugget.
I'm not a vegetarian, but I must admit I'm learning a lot about cooking from those who are. Never heard of "blintzes" as Kornfeld calls them, but sounds like a fried mini-pizza.
From all things I learned, cooking was the most rewarding.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I have recently had some Vegan dishes that knocked my socks off - really, that good. I usually do not mix tofu with meat products/broth, but it makes sense, since Tofu cooked correctly is supposed to absorb or "take on" the dominant flavor of whatever is cooked in/with.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: I have recently had some Vegan dishes that knocked my socks off - really, that good.
Ditto; had a pizza that made me want to eat more, even though it didn't contain meat (nor mushrooms, nor tofu or anything similar).
Slacker007 wrote: I usually do not mix tofu with meat products/broth, but it makes sense, since Tofu cooked correctly is supposed to absorb or "take on" the dominant flavor of whatever is cooked in/with.
Only for non-vegetarians, since the broth cube is (usually) not vegetarian. I guess that any broth-cube might work, even mushroom or veggies.
Was an instant hit though. Next time I will omit the cube completely and try only taco-seasoning
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Sigh. https://codeburst.io/software-architecture-the-difference-between-architecture-and-design-7936abdd5830[^]
Not expecting to read anything actually of worth, I was not disappointed. I did find this sentence though highly amusing, under the header "The Definition of Software Architecture" (my bolding):
> Quote: This definition leads us to ask about the characteristics of a software that can affect a software architecture design.
The rest of the article, IMHO, does nothing to shed light on architecture vs. design. Even worse, the concept of "architecture" is defined in terms of buzzwords like "Serverless Architecture" and "Microservices Architecture". Useless.
I find the definition of "architecture" in wikipedia to be must more (pun intended) concrete:
> Quote: The art and science of designing buildings and (some) nonbuilding structures. The style of design and method of construction of buildings and other physical structures. A unifying or coherent form or structure.
Replace "buildings" with "software" and I think you have a much better definition! Still, it seems that one cannot define "architecture" without using the word "design." 
modified 2-Nov-19 11:54am.
|
|
|
|
|
I consider "design" to be about the UI, while "architecture" is about how the code is structured.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: I consider "design" to be about the UI, while "architecture" is about how the code is structured.
For whom is the UI? For an end user it's one thing. For a developer it's something else entirely. In both cases, the underlying structure of the code is important. Architecture is about that structure.
|
|
|
|
|
First link on Google: "Architecture is a plan for the structure of something. Design is a plan to create something. An easy way to think about the difference between architecture and design is to consider the architecture of an office building as compared with its interior design"
I often complain I'm not hired for "design"; what colors and fonts your app will get doesn't concern me. I only care for the logic, and whether the application returns "correct" results.
Design can be left to marketing, as long as they accept to adhere to the UIXguide
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Makes sense
They call me different but the truth is they're all the same!
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Im not sure if this will make sense but here goes:
Both can be prefaced with many words. Software Design, UI Design, UX Design, Home Design...
Architecture is the What. Solution will use a server-less design, with a SPA front end, on amazon, with language X, database Q. Requirement Y will be satisfied with solution M and requirement U with solutions N and B.
Design is the how.
And because the architect spins more words, gets paid more.
|
|
|
|
|
My son just got his Master's Degree in UX Design (and a new job doing this). He insists it's different to UI design but all I can tell is that the spelling of the acronym/name is one letter different.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
UX (User Experience) and UI (User Interface) really are two sides of the same coin. UI design is all about design that fits the function of the program. UX is how the user feels about the interaction with the interface. You can have a great design, for instance, but the user experience will fall flat due to issues with performance or in the consistency of the interface.
A good example is with operating systems and file browse/open/save dialogs. If an OS uses a cohesive strategy, then application developers use the same toolbox to access dialog interfaces, which makes the user experience (at the very least) predictable from one application to another. Without this consistency, every application has its own dialogs, which makes the experience from one application to another jarring.
Also, user experience is about knowing your target audience, and then fine tuning the interface for that audience. For instance, if most of your audience is hard-core programmers, they won't be scared off by CLI commands to perform everyday functions. But if your target audience isn't technically oriented, presenting them with a CLI will only push them to the next product in line.
|
|
|
|
|
Software architecture is that which cannot be easily replaced.
Everything else is implementation details 
|
|
|
|
|
I am a long time hobbyist programmer from a construction based industry. Being a hobbyist, I am no authority on the matter, but I think my intimate relationship with both of those words in and out of the programming world might provide some decent perspective. I find it remarkable just how often I can take programming philosophy articles, do a search/replace of programming terms for construction terms and usually wind up with a document that 95% represents my very divergent industry.
To me design is the aesthetic parts of a software that users will see and appreciate. That isn't necessarily just the appeal of the UI, but also related to the combination of tools (features) that were made available for them to productively accomplish their own goals. In construction terms, design is most fundamentally how appreciated the end results will be to the occupants, after the incorporation of all the tiny details.
I would consider architecture the elegance of the whole systems back end that supports the design. Was it a series of after thoughts and band aids that ultimately produced a seamless user experience or was it well planned, easy to maintain, easy to enhance and easy to troubleshoot. I would also say, in terms of construction, the architecture would include the very big picture pre-engineering concepts and that truly good architecture should always be clear and obvious to maintenance personnel of reasonable competency.
Both are very important and extremely interconnected. Which is why this question will never have a consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
Well played, folks - good game.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
They certainly outclassed England, sad to say.
|
|
|
|
|
nicely done.
always seems a little more satisfying when the favorites don't always prevail.
Message Signature
(Click to edit ->)
|
|
|
|
|
I think SA were certainly favourites today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was a good game, I saw a recent article reflecting how the British press were talking about their players and I think that's totally unfair.
As a Saffer I'm proud of our boys but England did well, it was a good final. Have to say though that the tries were pure magic.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
