|
I don't think it's acceptable to lock developer PCs down.
It's arguably more important than doing it for everyone else since many developers will probably have more access to more things. I can get that. It's just that it just doesn't work and can't really. It could be good if you want a place to put your feet up, instead of "it's compiling" being the mantra for screwing around, it just becomes "waiting on security hand holding".
Typical corporo-idiocy. I'd imagine you can get someone who knows something about anything to "unban" notepad++.
Alternatively, anon email them a link to your glassdoor review where you outline their draconian lunacy of disallowing notepad++ installations.
|
|
|
|
|
For medical application software, there is SOUP
The IT department will then be more concerned about the development process of that software, than other aspects.
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: For medical application software, there is SOUP
Shouldn't that be chicken soup? 
(The Jewish cure-all...)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I think its because they don't like walking upstairs (they have a nice air-conditioned office) to where the trolls work. We are Medical Adjacent so SOUP is known. Why in ![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) 's name do they use Python for some stuff... 
|
|
|
|
|
I am impressed w/ this fellow's work. I had utilized his text editor many years ago but am too tight fisted to purchase now. So I utilize NotePad++ and BowPad.
Welcome to Just Great Software[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Smoke and mirrors security at its best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How much of really bad code have you seen?
I've seen plenty.
Definitely more bad than good.
I've got this theory that at least 90% of programmers are a bunch of bunglers who don't understand basic OOP principles, or any other programming best practices for that matter.
I also think the programming industry isn't unique.
Which would mean at least 90% of all people are just bad at their jobs, including builders, doctors, surgeons, politicians, judges... 
And the remaining 10% still make mistakes 
|
|
|
|
|
Right now I'm helping with a project that monitors an animal's health and safety, and even though it's not a human, I am extra careful with my code, and it makes me nervous, but good nervous because I check my work.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I am extra careful with my code, and it makes me nervous, but good nervous because I check my work.
That's how I feel when I write any code. Even if the consequences are "only" financial, the last thing I want is for the blame to be laid at my door.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I have levels of careful.
For most professional code, my careful involves making sure there's a QA/QC process in place because I don't believe people are effective at testing our own code, for the same reason we aren't good at proofreading our own resumes or CVs.
So there's a limited amount of due diligence I employ before I decide that I'm wasting money. Because I won't be able to catch my corner cases anyway.
Now, I could do TDD for this particular project, and that might be the best way to go about it, even though *usually* my firmware is small enough, and the test matrix small enough that it's not cost effective. But usually I'm not looking after animals. However, I don't own this codebase. I'm just a consultant doing some of the development.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Which would mean at least 90% of all people are just bad at their jobs
90% of Science Fiction is crud. But then 90% of everything is crud.
-- Theodore Sturgeon
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know who this Theodore Sturgeon is, but he and I are of the same mind on this one 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoever assassinated John Barnett apparently is good at his job. Whoever will no doubt fail to bring the assassin to justice is bad at his job.
|
|
|
|
|
90% of all drivers think they are better drivers than average.
I'm sure there's a correlation with peoples opinion about their jobs as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: who don't understand basic OOP principles, or any other programming best practices for that matter.
Not understanding that doesn't necessarily implies that you write unsecure code.
If I had to choose as a user, I would prefer to have a spagetti safe working code in a ECU than a very structured and clean code that contains bugs in it for the same ECU.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
The chances of spaghetti code working well and being safe are a lot less than neat and clean code being safe and working well.
Plus spaghetti will raise chances on bugs considerably on any future update.
"There are two ways to write code: write code so simple there are obviously no bugs in it, or write code so complex that there are no obvious bugs in it." - Tony Hoare
|
|
|
|
|
I use spaghetti sometimes to proof a complicated design, before I rewrite.
I got crap for it here in the lounge.
But I don't see the difference between using VS Code vs using pen and paper, except a compiler can check my work with the former.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
We're unique in that we haven't been around as long as those other professions.
That means our bad ones tend to be worse, and on average, by comparison, so are we. Industry maturity thing.
I think this one stays a baby for awhile though. Thanks to awful entities like AAPL, we're doomed to an unnatural level of combined ignorance and consumption for a time to come.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I've got this theory that at least 90% of programmers are a bunch of bunglers
My theory is that 80% of people are average. 10% are excellent. 10% are not very good.
That after all is basically how normal distribution works.
But of course one must keep in mind that people are complex. As such they might suck at one thing but be great at another.
Time, complexity and economics will always have an impact on any idealization that one might have started with. Not to mentioned efforts that and up only half done due to some 'better' idealization halfway through.
So no point in me agonizing over might have beens when I wasn't even around to see what those people had to go through.
|
|
|
|
|
Boeing has taken the ideal of non-discrimination on sex, religion, and race one step further. It now does not discriminate on ability.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Proof if reincarnation. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
The conversion to McDonnell Douglas management philosophies is nearly complete. At the time of the great merger between Boing and McDonnell Douglas the DC 10 fiasco was rapidly sinking that company. After the merger the cancerous "Maximizing Shareholder Value" took hold in Boing and the march to lower levels of quality had begun. The share value soared and nobody cared that Boing QA teams were decimated in the process. Boing engineers understood that people make mistakes and in a complicated machine like an airplane mistakes could have deadly consequences. So assembly teams had extra time factored into assembly to handle the inevitable delays incurred when QA caught mistakes. But this raised costs and lowered productivity. This did NOT maximize share holder value. QA teams became single QA persons who could only enter problems into a system and no longer affect the production of a plane. Assembly team size also shrunk and strict assembly times were enforced. Missing bolts for a door, put the door up, enter the missing bolts into a system and move on. Somebody else would handle the problem later.
Now the merry-go-round has stopped and the FAA is left holding the bag as the big bad government regulator that has to point out the glaring deficiencies. Boing management is left with hollow promises to make things better but the excess money is gone, gobbled up by stock buy backs that "Maximized Share Holder Value". There is no spare money to throw at increasing team sizes without affecting the value of the stock. Like the DC10 of old, the customers are voting with their feet and refusing to fly on the Boing Max planes. Airlines are starting to review their long term orders and reducing the demand for these controversial airplanes.
Its just sad.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
