|
What if you Google to prepare, read, and study? 
|
|
|
|
|
You'd be rather limited; tutorials on the internet do not undergo the same screening as most books do. On most topics, the stuff that you Google would be unordered and fragmented, with the scope being based on your personal understanding - you might skip a few rather important things.
That's how we ended up with VB6-forms that concatenate a string to form a query to check your password - people who are programming based on what tutorials they can Google 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
HAve to agree - most online tutorials seems to be written by people who can't teach (or even communicate in some cases), and who don;t appear to know the subject in any detail. Many seem to have "working code" but no real idea why it works or how they got it.
Video tutorials on YouTube are the worst.
And sausages are the wurst.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Video tutorials on YouTube are the worst.
I can't agree more. Video in general is a bad medium for learning programming in my opinion. Re-reading a chapter or paragraph for better comprehension feels natural. Skipping back multiple times to find the exact time someone started talking about a topic is irritating at best. Not to even mention the content quality.
OriginalGriff wrote:
And sausages are the wurst.
Now I'm hungry 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not really a fan of writing in books, but occasionally a scribbled note has reduced the amount of kicking-myself over the years, particularly for technologies I don't use every year -- such as Perl and XSLT.
|
|
|
|
|
I love my notebooks. Useful for everything from notes on language quirks to scribbling architecture ideas 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't Google because I don't know or understand the subject. I Google because I can't remember the exact darn syntax.
Let me tell ya, despite many names, everything we use old or new is the same thing over and over again. We use to call them formatted text data file now they slapped a name called XML or JSON. We use to have server and now called cloud. But the syntax and steps to do it different, the concept is the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Leng Vang wrote: I Google because I can't remember the exact darn syntax.
So do I.
Leng Vang wrote: We use to call them formatted text data file now they slapped a name called XML or JSON
I know what you mean, but ... XML and JSON are different in that they are "standardized" ways of transferring extremely formatted data that would previously have its own proprietary format for each application that used it. Both XML and JSON simplify the process and increase the chances that another app will be able to use the data at the same time.
Leng Vang wrote: We use to have server and now called cloud.
I'd disagree - Cloud is a return to the very old "centralised processing" model with dumb terminals - but with a complete absence of data control and / or security within the company that we used to have. You can't even be sure if your Cloud supplier will still exist next week, much less that they backup properly, or don't employ your competitors...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
While I do recognize that there are terrible tutorials out there, there are also some terrible books out there. Also tutorials are not the only form of information available. I learned JS/TS almost exclusively through MDN[^] and TypeScriptLang[^]. Don't get me wrong - books are great. But with how rapidly technology is changing, I'd rather read up-to-date online documentation than a probably out-of-date book that isn't due a new version til next year or later.
As an aside, being able to filter through web searches, compare sources, and form actual knowledge from the aggregate is an underappreciated skill. Some topics force you to use this method either due to fragmented information or such rapidly changing technology that books as a medium are insufficient. The example that pops into my head immediately is IRC. There are books but if you base an IRC client implementation on that information you'll be missing tons of modern features such as ISUPPORT, SASL, and capability negotiation while including obsolete features such as RPL_BOUNCE and RPL_SUMMONING.
TL;DR: Books are great for topics that don't change often. Online documentation is better for rapidly changing, fragmented, or niche topics. Both have their fair share of terrible advice.
modified 10-Apr-18 15:22pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon McKee wrote: I learned JS/TS almost exclusively through MDN[^] and TypeScriptLang[^].
The syntax, yes 
Jon McKee wrote: But with how rapidly technology is changing, I'd rather read up-to-date online documentation than a probably out-of-date book that isn't due a new version til next year or later.
Technology is changing? Where?
Win10 is largely still working according to the same principles as Win95.
Jon McKee wrote: There are books but if you base an IRC client implementation on that information you'll be missing tons of modern features such as ISUPPORT, SASL, and capability negotiation while including obsolete features such as RPL_BOUNCE and RPL_SUMMONING.
I'm not saying that some reference-documentation needs to be in book-format; only pointing out that authors spend a lot of time gathering knowledge and putting it in an accesible format. Not just as paper-books (which I prefer, because it squats bugs better than an tablet), but also as ebooks 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Win10 is largely still working according to the same principles as Win95.
Absolutely!
I hate it when someone writes a new program and calls it new technology.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
No, I wouldn't say so. It is like saying that C# and assembler coding on the 8086 works along the same principles.
The event driven model pushed by early Windows was never embraced by application developers: Some tiny little event triggers an (ideally) atomic state transition. Win16 didn't have preemptive scheduling - there was no need for it. Or wouldn't have been, if developers had adopted the event driven philosophy.
Software developers - with the exception of those who come from the digital telephone exchange world - are trained in sequential top-to-bottom programming. Even managing a handful of (more or less persistent) threads is "advanced matter" in the training, and protection of data structures and synchronization are, for the most part, poorly mastered. But that is the only way programmers can handle e.g. peripherals: By setting up a thread that, like a 1970 style Fortran program, runs from top to bottom (although with some loops and conditional statements).
Event oriented programming is reduced to exceptional cases, where you set up a callback and attach it to some OnSomethingHappened case. The main body of the application code does not reflect the fundamental event driven paradigm of Windows16, where you might say that everything, the entire application logic, was written as a large number of OnSomethingHappened handlers, all of them tiny and near-atomic.
With Windows95 came a collection of "helper" functions for supporting event handling in a more sequential-code-looking way. I saw it as (and believe it was intended as) an outstretched hand to old sequential programmers to ease the transition to "real" event driven programming. It rather started the snowball running down the hill, back to the Fortran style coding. Even in the 1970s, interrupt handlers were required to handle external events (and on most machines you could trigger an interrupt from software as well) - they were called interrupt handlers, not event handlers, but the difference between the two is minimal.
After Windows9x, I haven't seen any application code following the event driven paradigm; we are back to the sequential way of doing things. The core of Win10 is still event driven, as OSes always were with peripherals and timing, maybe more so than some other OSes thanks to its historical background. But no application is programmed by the even driven paradigm.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The event driven model pushed by early Windows was never embraced by application developers:
Really? Because in both the VB4 - VB6 world. and the subsequent C#/VB .NET world, the use of events is common. I still use them even in Xamarin.Forms apps.
Thus, in terms of being embraced by application developers, I'd say event driven programming certainly is common in the Windows OS world.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't (in any reasonable way) make a GUI application without handlers for input events, like you can't make an OS without interrupt handlers for physical units.
But even if you register callbacks for user input events, that doesn't mean that your basic programming paradigm is event oriented coding, as in FSM: One event leads to one atomic transition.
Certainly, there may be software designers who base the entire code design on an FSM-like model, but those are few and far between today (with the exception of communication protocols).
I recall from the Win 3.x/9x days an article about how a compiler was rewritten to fit the event model: E.g. the scanner delivering a new token from the input stream was modeled as an event (read: Windows message). Adding a node to the DAG was an event, etc. In software built by such a model, the mainloop (a concept the modern programmer never sees) is essentially an array indexed by current state and event code, each table element indicating the next state and usually some atomic action. Lots of the program logic is reflected in this state table, not in a sequence of if-else or while-loop statements. The use of flow control statements are in the atomic state transition actions.
In those days, I made (for educational purposes only, to teach students event driven programming) an implementation of X.215, the OSI Session Layer protocol, which is "rather messy" if you have to code it in sequential code. Implemented as an FSM model, it is almost trivial. Of course: Creating that table is a huge task (but for X.215, ITU had done that task for us ).
Event-driven development focuses on the state table. Obviously, you can implement a state table solution in any language that can handle function pointers (aka. delegates, in C# lore). But you don't see it done that way very often.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I'm not saying that some reference-documentation needs to be in book-format; only pointing out that authors spend a lot of time gathering knowledge and putting it in an accesible format. Not just as paper-books (which I prefer, because it squats bugs better than an tablet), but also as ebooks
Very true. And I do agree to an extent that paper books (and some ebooks) are scrutinized before publishing depending on the publisher. However, as you alluded to, the majority of the quality is placed upon the author regardless of the type of media. It may be easier to spread misinformation online but at the end of the day the onus is still upon the reader to determine validity. That's why I generally hold no bias towards different media types.
I have no idea how these things are handled elsewhere though. In the US you can publish pretty much whatever you want as long as there's profit to be made. Truth and accuracy be damned. Looking at you revisionist history books 
Eddy Vluggen wrote: The syntax, yes
Those links are more than syntax. They list built-in objects and available functionality, cover this and prototype-based inheritance, show available WebAPIs and their compatabilities, explain how HTML/CSS/JS interact, discuss the DOM, and more.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Technology is changing? Where?
Win10 is largely still working according to the same principles as Win95.
Oh Windows  I should have been more specific. Technology was too broad a term.
All hail logic gates! The one, true computing technology, haha.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon McKee wrote: It may be easier to spread misinformation online but at the end of the day the onus is still upon the reader to determine validity.
I have reviewed a manuscript or two for Manning; every bit of text and code is verified.
But yes, MSDN is underappreciated
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 totally agree. I read book when I want to understand a new subject. When come to coding, books are useless in my opinion. Most books only skim to basic and only one view. I want to know multiple ways of accomplish the same job and pick the best for a situation. I would say 90% of the time, I found answer on StackOverflow.com MSDN is great on documentation, but not so with how to get specific job done.
|
|
|
|
|
You could of course google for an (e)book and read a digital version instead of one that was already outdated the moment it was printed. 
|
|
|
|
|
You could, but the free ebooks are the same quality as the free tutorials; you'd be reading something that is not verified and probably full of small errors and bugs.
As for the idea that stuff in print is outdated before it arrives, that remark is so rediculous I'm not even going to entertain it
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Books are for learning,
Google is for reference.
|
|
|
|
|
What type of desk set up is at the new place? No cube walls? Stack those books on the edge of the desk to create some personal space.
|
|
|
|
|
How did you know
|
|
|
|
|
Because in my current job, starting in 2013, I've been gradually downgraded from a cube with 5'6" walls, drawers, and lockable shelves, to a triangular desk area with 8" dividers, to a rolling table 5'6" by 3'. My books are currently stacked almost 3' high on one corner of the table to create some semblance of a visual blind. Big over the ear head phones help with the auditory distractions.
It's "collaborative" space.
I bet the idiots who designed this format don't have to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
I managed to get moved to the hardware lab. It took an extensive testing of a very noisy electrical motor (it had to be controlled by the software and I'm the hardware communication man in the company since apparently I'm the only one who does it reliably) which had seemingly random errors after thousands of runs.
*GROOOOOAN* *CHUNK!* *GROOOAAAN* *CLANG!* for weeks 8 hours/day and suddenly my request to be moved got approved. After 5 years I was asking.
GCS d-- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Was it Stuxnet?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
