|
There are various metrics that can be calculated for source code. These can help to determine its complexity, readability or maintainability. When you are involved in code reviews, it can be useful to determine such metrics for the code being examined. This can help you to identify problem areas and rectify issues before they become too embedded in the software. Visual Studio 2008 introduced a set of five automatically calculated metrics, which continued to be present in Visual Studio 2010 and 2012. The most important code metric of all: Build succeeded.
|
|
|
|
|
I would disagree. If it is difficult to maintain afterwards, the cost can be extremely high. If the code does not do what it needs to do, who cares if the build succeeded.
|
|
|
|
|
No, the most important metric is: Is the customer happy enough to give you more money?
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging 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
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
The way browsers work today has changed in many ways thanks to jQuery. Just a few years ago DOM parsing was rather complicated, jQuery made that easy. DOM manipulation was not straight forward, thanks to jQuery developers can manipulate with little effort. Today 96%+ browsers in use today support document.querySelectorAll, which accepts a CSS selector and returns a list of matching nodes. In many ways thanks to jQuery, jQuery itself is no longer needed. There I said it.... I encourage you to give it a shot. Write your next application, library or just code for fun without jQuery. See what you can do. How much could you do without jQuery today?
|
|
|
|
|
Terrence Dorsey wrote: document.querySelectorAll
assuming that you are only using jQuery for the functionality of a DOM selector then maybe this argument holds true. however, there is more to jQuery than just DOM selection.
there is of course no doubt that jQuery is evolving because of brower modifications and one only has to look at jQuery 2.0 as proof.
as if the facebook, twitter and message boards weren't enough - blogged
|
|
|
|
|
Meh, it *might* be useful to avoid jQuery if you are doing some very serious client-side stuff (e.g., canvas games). For most things, the benefit isn't all that great.
Quote: Even the minimized jQuery is 91kb today
It's even smaller gzipped (jQuery 1.9.1 gzipped and minified is around 30KB). According to the speedtest.net app, my iPhone downloads at 4.5Mbps (> 500KB/s), which means 30KB would take a fraction of a second. And if you use a common CDN, the cost from one site to the next is zero.
Quote: While the 2.0 release promises to be smaller and faster its really not something I feel I can wait on any longer.
For most, I suspect that won't be true. And there is some value in using an API (jQuery) that can change under the hood (e.g., it can deprecate support for old browsers and start using the newer browser functions to speed up its implementation, without me having to change my code other than pointing to a new version of jQuery).
|
|
|
|
|
Gather round young coders while I tell you a little story. Way back when, far before you were born, we were building programs just like you are. After we trudged uphill barefoot in the snow, we went into a scorching hot room and we hit the plugboards with boundless enthusiasm, plugging switches in to “portable function tables” and doing arithmetic as it was meant to be done… slowly. We didn’t have any “stored programs” like you spoiled brats, we had blueprints! Punch cards! Stuff written on napkins! You kids download and app to your phone to calculate your food budget but we really earned our keep. Old programmers had to be more resourceful and inventive.
|
|
|
|
|
It is true that we can now use Google to help find solutions, but a lot of the technology that we have today is a lot more difficult since the concepts need to be understood, and that takes time. The old time programmers only had a few tools to learn. Basically just a few statement types. Now programmers have to learn the concepts of OOD, design patterns, SQL, LINQ, and a whole bunch of other things. Also programs were single threaded without events like have today. Things were a lot more linear. Dealing with threads and their complexities is not very easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Contrariwise, the lesser number of tools and options available to them required theyo be ever more clever in order to implement solutions.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
I do not agree. It is a lot more work, but understanding complex tools requires more understanding. It is very easy to use a shovel, but a backhoe is more complex. However the you are much efficient. If you do not have good tools, you have to go more brute force. That of course leads to the possibility of many more errors and inefficiencies. But that is another story. Just like it is much easier to make a straight cut with a table saw than a hand saw, but the table saw requires more knowlege to operate.
|
|
|
|
|
Contrariwise:^,
Brute Force? The Backhoe and the Table Saw win out on that account. Try digging up a gas pipeline with a back-hoe or using a table saw to remove a tree branch.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "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 |
|
|
|
|
|
True a table saw would not work for a tree branch, but I would prefer digging up a gas pipeline with backhoe rather than just a shovel. If I was cutting a tree branch I would prefer a saw to an axe, and for a very thick branch a chain saw.
|
|
|
|
|
A [Yahoo! Geocities-style] theme for Twitter Bootstrap, from Divshot. Someone just won the internets.
|
|
|
|
|
That is amazing. We applied to a test environment for a site we have that uses Bootstrap 
|
|
|
|
|
LOL!
Gryphons Are Awesome! Gryphons Are Awesome!
|
|
|
|
|
I just threw up a little, in my mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve worked in technology for twenty years, the past thirteen as a product manager. I’ve gained somewhat of a reputation for being effective at working with software engineers.... For years I’ve kept my secrets close to the vest. But no longer: today I will share with you my Ten-Step Plan for Working With Engineers. Or more to the point: how to make engineers do what you tell them to do. Free donuts works for me. What's your trick?
|
|
|
|
|
Donuts don't work on me (I have a fairly strict diet).
I have also been given movie passes, but haven't used any because I always print tickets with Fandango.
Gobs and gobs of money tends to work on me though. 
|
|
|
|
|
Wow! That was close. 
Disgust almost caused me to cease reading before I got to the afterword.
Make it work. Then do it better - Andrei Straut
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, every game has an ending of sorts. For a certain class of classic game, though, that ending was always of the "You Are Dead Ha Ha Ha!" variety. From Robotron 2084's ever-increasing robot hordes to Missile Command's memorable "THE END" explosion, you went into these games knowing that failure was not just an option, but really the only option. Then there are the games that seem like they should go on forever but, for one reason or another, just don't. Whether it's because of a coding error leading to an unintentional "kill screen" or a simple design choice stopping an otherwise never-ending series of loops, a lot of games that seem unbeatable at first glance can actually be conquered in one way or another. Thanks to these programming glitches, it's exception-ally hard to win.
|
|
|
|
|
I want to know how to beat this, which is a sort of mega-mini-game you'd get when you plugged one of the other Sonic games into the Sonic & Knuckles cartridge (I think there may have been other steps involved).
Basically, you navigate non-stop around a checkerboard that is wrapped around a sphere world. There are a bunch of blue dots you visit, which turns them red. You must turn each blue dot red to pass that stage. If you hit a red dot, you lose. The star dots bounce you around.
Each stage seemed to be procedurally generated, and I played hundreds of them before giving up.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft is no stranger to the concept of wrist-based computing, having worked with watchmakers to release a line of smartwatches starting nearly a decade ago. Ultimately, they didn’t catch on, and the watches were discontinued. Now, a new report from the Wall Street Journal says the company is thinking about getting into the market again, with a touch-based smartwatch of its own. The report comes amid rumors that Apple, Google and others are moving in this direction with plans for smartwatches themselves. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day... except when it's digital.
|
|
|
|
|
Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every two years or so.... But if an observer today was to measure this rate of increase, it would be straightforward to extrapolate backwards and work out when the number of transistors on a chip was zero. In other words, the date when microchips were first developed in the 1960s.... These guys argue that it’s possible to measure the complexity of life and the rate at which it has increased from prokaryotes to eukaryotes to more complex creatures such as worms, fish and finally mammals. That produces a clear exponential increase identical to that behind Moore’s Law although in this case the doubling time is 376 million years rather than two years. People aren't that good at floating point math, either.
|
|
|
|
|
In today’s installment of FlippedBITS, I want to examine a handful of common misconceptions about IMAP, a common protocol for retrieving email from a server. IMAP stands for… well, thereby hangs the first tale. IMAP’s inventor, Mark Crispin (who, sadly, died in December 2012), called the first version of his creation Interim Mail Access Protocol. Versions 2, 3, and 2bis were referred to as Interactive Mail Access Protocol, and version 4 — what’s in use today — is officially Internet Message Access Protocol. Although many Web sites claim that the acronym once stood for Internet Mail Access Protocol, I have found no credible references to back up that claim. You've got mail... probably thanks to IMAP.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
