|
Jason Cardoza wrote: full of arbitrary rules
What other kind is there? 
|
|
|
|
|
Restrict all code to very simple control flow constructs. Do not use GOTO statements, setjmp or longjmp constructs, direct or indirect recursion.
I like that point. I eschew recursion. There are other, better ways to do it.
But, recursion is the nifty-bang thing that all the Universities like to teach.
Well the University of Adversity says don't use it in production code if you can help it.
Also I wonder if that one is related to the rocket that blew up because it kept feeding fuel into the system? A recursive algorithm maybe?
Oh, just looked it up. It wasn't recursion that killed the rocket:
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~jorgev/cs106/bug.pdf[^]
|
|
|
|
|
newton.saber wrote: It wasn't recursion that killed the rocket:
Great read. I love this line:
The work of software engineers is radically different from the type of work done by a student programmer. They spend more time specifying, designing and testing than they do writing code.
Riiight. It's a rare thing when I work with someone on a project that actually wants to spend time specifying and designing. After all, refactoring and agile, while all the rage, are misconstrued into anti-patterns of specifying and designing.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
#11 - Never try to eat an ice cream while holding a recently captured feral cat.
|
|
|
|
|
#11.1 Never try to code when your decidedly non-feral cat wants to lay on your keyboard.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
#12 Mail the captured feral cat to someone on eBay.
|
|
|
|
|
Those rules are very similar to the JSF++ coding guidelines developed for the Joint-Strike Fighter. This document was developed by Lockheed Martin and published in 2005. Stroustrup and a few other C++ experts, whom I can't remember their names for certain, were consulted on this standard.
The document can be found here: http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf[^]
Most C++ static analysis tools have a preset configuration to enforce the guidelines defined in this document.
|
|
|
|
|
In various forms NASA's been following the general practices laid out in the top 10 list for decades. Hyper paranoid defensive coding rules haven't really needed to change much in a long time.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Nice Read...Thanks for sharing 
|
|
|
|
|
I think sdtimes.com has to be the most annoying software-related web site I've ever seen. EVERY page navigation triggered the stupid f***ing ad overlay or a "how do you like SDTimes?" prompt.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
With those rules, you might as well have a rule "just don't write any code", because it is clearly impossible to comply and still do anything nontrivial. Rules 1 and 2 together mean that it's not even Turing complete, and rules 3 and 9 together mean that the only possible data structure is a fixed size array. You could create a variable size array during initialization, but then rule 2 means you can never use more than a constant piece of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Computers have figured out how to win at chess, checkers and tic-tac-toe, and now, a computer program has conquered the game of poker. He's bluffing
|
|
|
|
|
Only if it knows your hand.
Edit: The only way to win is not to play.
modified 8-Jan-15 16:45pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Feel free to publicly challenge the application.
(I'm just curious about it's poker-face)
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Enough of the stand-up meetings please, just WRITE SOME CODE "One of you... must do this."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aw stick it in your backlog. 
|
|
|
|
|
I will not even reply to such a troll! I will not tell you how terribly stupid that article is. I refuse to be dragged into this discussion and tell you how confused he is that he says that Agile should be this and should be that, when the true definition of Agile is already a lot of what he is trying to say it ought to be.
Nope. I won't even reply. Won't do it.
|
|
|
|
|
:: Where's that +10 button? ::
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. It's good to see rational people agreeing with each other. 
|
|
|
|
|
I like that most of his suggestions, like "Just ship, then fix based on customer feedback" is pretty much what I understand Agile to be. (Ignoring the invocations of Agile)
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
He just hates standing up in a conf room with 8 other people before he's had his 3rd morning coffee. Oh wait, that's me. 
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Sivakumar wrote: hates standing up in a conf room with 8 other people
Sure, but that's just Scrum, not all of Agile.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with Scrum is that too often it can degenerate into a ruck, or a rolling maul...especially if the only intent is to keep the ball moving.
(You must be English/Irish/Scottish/Welsh to understand this post )
|
|
|
|
|
Silliness.
Like any tool, the agile development process needs to be used properly in order for it to be effective. A vacuum cleaner is much better when it comes to removing dust than a spoon. But please don't use it to stir your coffee.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
