|
A crystal ball presentation on the future of application security at the Gartner Security and Risk Management Summit this year caught the eye of us in the software security space. I predict hacks. And cracks. And stacks of whacked racks.
Oh wait. It's Gartner. So the opposite of all that.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeeze, my eyes ended up going around in circles, going through that indigestible pap.
Maybe it hacked my visual cortex.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It's all about the connectivity between particles, just like mapping social networks. Because like the Higgs Boson, good ideas on Twitter only last a femtosecond before decaying?
And the resulting particles are all toxic?
|
|
|
|
|
There is BS, utter BS, and clickbait "news".
Benjamin Disraeli
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
MIT physicists wonder what would make them cool, decide it's social networks.
(40 years ago, was it "faxing could hold the key..."?)
|
|
|
|
|
Why too many tech companies under-invest in QA testing and what can be done about it. Oh! *TESTING* before release? Why has no one thought of this before?
|
|
|
|
|
Because new icons...
(Bad/no testing aggravates me to no end; having a good tester trying to prove my code is sh*t really is a wonderful thing. My goal, of course, is to prove s/he's worthless as a tester.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: having a good tester trying to prove my code is sh*t really is a wonderful thing. My goal, of course, is to prove s/he's worthless as a tester.)
Users will still find something not working as it should. Don't underestimate the power of the clueless morons that randomize the usage of your app.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
For example, my father. Funny thing is that he has a PhD and built a computer in the 80s to gather data from some test samples (it was cheaper and easier to use than the HP hardware.) Problem is that he overthinks everything.
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: For example, my father.
For the record... I didn't call your father clueless moron... You did the association   
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I never called him a "clueless moron", but came close. To be fair, the last time he screwed up his computer in a spectacular way, he apologized to me and said he would be a good tester. (And the last time he asked how to do something crazy, he looked at my long list of specific instructions that had to be done in order and decided to not do it.)
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you mean... 
The worst are those who know a bit about computers.
It is not know enough to be safe, but it is enough to be really dangerous.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
What's that expression about stuff falling from trees?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
F=G((m1*m2)/r²) ?
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
That's the guy.
I keep getting it mixed up with Coulomb's Law -- y'know, the one about the further away people are, the less stoopid they sound.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, is it still stoopid?
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
If a tree falls in the forest and you don't hear it, you'm buggered!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Why should "more companies" do it when the biggest players in the industry don't?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Cart before the horse. Before QA can test, the application has to be testable. As bizarre as this sounds, in many cases that is not easily achieved without a whole lot of supporting infrastructure. Because, realistically, programmers don't write testable code. And that should be the horse. If programmers wrote testable code, then companies wouldn't have to "invest" an arm and a leg on the QA side to compensate for their sh*t developers.
[edit]Oh, and QA people tend to be like programmers. They are actually clueless as to how to test.[/edit]
|
|
|
|
|
We write testable code here. I can't imagine writing code without the infrastructure necessary to test my code. Just because it compiles, doesn't mean it is by any means ready to ship (or even test).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Although they are one of the first constructs that junior programmers learn, loops can pose many potential issues the software development process, and could be avoided in many cases, according to Marco Emrich. Again?
|
|
|
|
|
A bs article if I ever saw one.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
The sign of an idiot provocateur is when they use "mistakes morons make" as a reason not to do something. Even funnier is when their alternatives suffer all the same problems, only worse (recursion bugs are notoriously tricky to track down.)
(And no offense to Java-istas, but using the stream API to iterate over a map is one of the dumbest thing I've ever read. How about forEach?)
|
|
|
|
|
His four points are actually excellent, in that they boil down to "don't be a crappy, careless programmer" -- that's always good advice.
But does he really offer recursion and streams as alternatives?
There's no way anyone could ever make careless mistakes with them, is there? Especially not the kind of programmer who doesn't know what <= means. You can trust them with recursion, no worries.
He's probably just unhappy that he missed out on the "make goto a dirty word" campaign, so he's trying to start a new one.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Lord!
Don't use a loop because you might screw up the break condition, use recursion instead! No-one in the history of the world has ever missed a break condition on a recursive method, have they?
Given that these high-falutin' ideas tend to fall apart in the face of reality, let's look at waht I'm writing today: I'm pulling a list from a database and generating an ML feed from every record to throw at an API. That's a pretty run-of-the-mill job and all over the world there'll be peope writing something similar.
Is anyone suggesting that there's really a better way of doing this than:
Read into list
foreach item in list
do stuff
It might look prosaic and it might not make for great conference speeches, but it's clearly and obviously the way to do the job - it's readable, it's reliable and it works. And, no, the foreach won't fail to break when it gets to the end of the list; the statefullness of this one off job won't kill the server and I'm entirely sure that nobody will die as a result of my hideously old-fashioned programming.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
