|
If it's spare, can I have it? 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Now I want a spare-rib machine... 
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
In related news, I understand that broken cars are really affecting the productivity of mechanics. And doctors are complaining that sick people are affecting their productivity.
|
|
|
|
|
As one of my college lecturers once said, code like you're stuck in the 1940's. In other words desk check it til the cows come home and ONLY then you compile. Treat the computer like it's a time share where you have to book several weeks in advance to get any run time to compile your program.
A little extra time during the design cycle works wonders for bug count (compile and logic bugs), amongst other things, such as code that will run until the cows come home like in financial institutions that have been running the same code on the same machines for 40 years or more. HUZZAH for stability.
|
|
|
|
|
Oddly enough, what you say is borne out by courses such as CMU's self-management course for softies. A detailed code walkthrough spots most errors before they get to the compiler.
However, the bugs that really slow you down are nothing to do with the compiler; testing bugs(inappropriate behaviour found in testing) occupy five times the span of compiler bugs, and if you want to get your LOC/Bug ratio down to acceptable levels, it is the testing bugs you should be aiming to get down.
And this is mostly about design.(If I remember right)
|
|
|
|
|
Simon O'Riordan from UK wrote: And this is mostly about design.(If I remember right)
Yup, and as I said, careful design will squish a lot of logic bugs as well. The bugs I find hardest to track down are what I refer to as 'incidental bugs'. Bugs that are normally not there but pop up from time to time when a user does something specific.
In my experience when I am trouble shooting code the user who is reporting the bug really doesn't know how to describe what they were doing when it happened. Very frustrating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how long it will take for someone to produce a study that finds "sawing reduces carpenters' productivity!".
What concerns me more though, is the notion that compiler errors are a bad thing: Me, I *want* the compile to fail as often as possible, rather than have the program fail at runtime! I specifically design my code to fail at compile time if anyone uses it in an unintended way!
Also, when I write such code, I do test that the compiler really issues an error. I consider that a build success though, not a build failure!
Besides, I often use templates and other complex code constructs, and sometimes it simply takes less time to just do a quick compile rather than brood over the code for hours and wonder whether the syntax is actually fine. My brain isn't hard-wired to do syntax checks - so why shouldn't I use the compiler for that purpose?
Also I often try to eliminate #includes that I believe are no longer necessary (specifically in header files). Considering the convoluted mess of system include files, there is no way to find out without running the compiler!
Conclusion:
Compiler errors are a good thing! They're easy to fix, and safe me a lot of effort on code inspection. Anyone who builds compilers with the goal to reduce compiler errors has missed the point entirely! Compilers should be built to point out as many errors as possible. That's why we have strongly typed languages after all!
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
Hear hear.
Not to mention meta-programming. Who could remember all those rules perfectly?
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a problem with my internet connection for a week or so - the speed dropped from ~4M to ~2.5M and the last couple of days it's been dropping out and the router reconnecting every half hour or so - annoying.
So I thought I'd look into it today.
First things first: ISP website, check line - OK. Doesn't help much, if it's an intermittent problem, but...
Then follow their basic checks: connect to the Test socket directly. OK, I'll try it.
5M straight away. WOW!
It's working, and I'll see if it's stable and stays up, but if that means I have to redo the house phone wiring, then fine - I'll happily pull new cable for an extra 20% on the fastest I've seen here! 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your comment might well have led me to solving our incredibly similar problem at home. Twitching to get out of the office now so I can try it.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Not a bad idea. I'll leave it 24 hours and see if the connection stays up - it has so far - and then look at getting one. If it doesn't, then the problem is with the connection between the existing master and the exchange, so I'll let them sort that first.
We can't move to Infinity - no fibre round these parts - but they are planning to start upgrading the local exchange in September, I believe. Heck, we have a bloke come round in a van every Tuesday afternoon to deliver the weeks supply of mains electricity! 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
The only fibre you have around there is Wool, that's not much use! (except it is good with velcro the Welsh keep saying) baaaa....
|
|
|
|
|
Had the same idea.
|
|
|
|
|
DaveAuld wrote: The only fibre you have around there is Wool
Yeah, but we use that for SMS.
(Sheep Messaging Service)
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
It may get faster still! The exchange keeps slowing down your connection when errors occur to try and find a reliable speed. I think its called 'banding', so it might go up.
I've rung up PlusNet (the best ISP in the world) several times about this and they can lift the restriction immediately.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Did you try spraying the cables with WD-40?
|
|
|
|
|
No, that ups the error rate by making the bits difficult to catch...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
That's what duct tape is for.
|
|
|
|
|
Orf to Sports Day and Biggun's school, on the invite it says "[...] and afternoon tea with a glass of Pimms afterwards." Shame [0] it's only a glass and [1] I have to drive.
Enjoy your afternoon [or whole day for Merca and Canadia]!
|
|
|
|
|
That's gonna depend on the size of the glass[^]
Hint: Take the Taxi number with you...and a range of false moustaches.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
That glass is waaaay toooooo small!
|
|
|
|
|
Hence the moustaches: pop one on and go for a refill!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
You'll never believe it BUT some wise person thought gin n tonics would be a good idea.
One. I shall have one...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
