|
Poisson au vin 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but that killed people, so it's not really funny.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see how that's a problem; a shutdown doesn't cost much and it could've been easily prevented. A risc/profit analysis prolly prevented that. Sometimes you bet wrong.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Yup. Sometimes quality in design is too expensive - initially. Too late you see how wrong you were. 
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been wrong in over twenty years.
And it was a choice made by the people who put money into it; they made a risc/profit analysis, and in their defence, environmental risc isn't a financial risc. So, NO PROBLEM THERE.
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: I haven't been wrong in over twenty years.
And it was a choice made by the people who put money into it; they made a risc/profit analysis, and in their defence, environmental risc isn't a financial risc. So, NO PROBLEM THERE.
Ummm you spelled "risk" wrong.
RISC describes a Reduced Instruction Set Computer.
It could be argued that "defence/defense" is wrong too (depends where you're from).
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
H.Brydon wrote: Ummm you spelled "risk" wrong.
My English teacher used to chide me for confusing "know" with "now".
I used to not now the difference, but it made some impact on conversations 
H.Brydon wrote: It could be argued that "defence/defense" is wrong too (depends where you're from).
She teaches English, not American. The first is what we should learn, the second is "an accident" and not even worth discussing.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that's alcohol abuse!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
boy, working on all that NFA lexer stuff made me forget how fast DFAs are.
Debugging my DFA lexer and doing some perf on it, and it's 10 times faster than lexly and now generates the tables almost as fast.
Performance-wise, my poor Pike virtual machine based tokenizer, cool as it is, is getting pounded into the dirt by good old boring, reliable DFA matching.
Rolex is nearly ready for a reboot, now supporting full unicode, with UTF-32 internally using the same old DFA algo as before, except sped up some.
But now I had to choose boring/fast over cool/slow and that makes me a little sad.
Even theoretically doing DFA conversion and then running it through lexly's VM is still twice as slow as just using rolex.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: boring/fast over cool/slow
It's code, not a lover. 
|
|
|
|
|
are you saying I'm too emotionally invested? HENGH?!! *raises eyebrow*
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
You wouldn't be good at what you do if you weren't emotionally invested, IMHO. 
|
|
|
|
|
Boring is underrated.
Boring is predictable and dependable. Most business owners like boring more than they first admit.
Would you prefer to invest your money into something boring or something cool? Don't think stocks, think about your time; that's an investment too, innit?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
all true, but it's not fun
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: all true, but it's not fun
Fun is what you do for entertainment. Being a boring person doesn't mean I don't like fun; but there's a time and place for everything.
Are you writing entertaining code, or reliable boring and predictable code? Which of those two will you invest in?
It's not sexy to be predictable, but you don't want sexy heating or tapwater in your house. You want them to "just work". You don't want a cool surgeon, but someone who claims to have done it a thousand times. You don't want financial advice from someone who goes for "sexy and cool". You want something reliable.
Here's one to keep you occupied; is your hubby a sexy, cool, adventurous kind? Or is he reliable and boring?
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: is your hubby a sexy, cool, adventurous kind?
When I married him.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Or is he reliable and boring?
10 years of marriage, go figure. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: When I married him.
I remember marrying. It rained that day.
honey the codewitch wrote: 10 years of marriage, go figure.
Doesn't sound like the adventurous kind, but the reliable kind.
It applies to everything in life; people assume they want adventure, but they balk as soon as drinking-water isn't available. People want boring.
Write both articles, from both boring and sexy perspectives; see which one is more popular 
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 suggested: Write both articles, from both boring and sexy perspectives; see which one is more popular
Not the same article, but I tried boring[^] and sexy[^], and the sexy one seriously triggered some folks!
|
|
|
|
|
Of course; people want sexy, not boring.
I am not putting my money on what I find interesting though.
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 am constantly surprised how what I think are my boring articles actually do better than the sexy ones.
|
|
|
|
|
Sexy is a risk; boring is a promise.
Ask any female.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: But now I had to choose boring/fast over cool/slow and that makes me a little sad.
That would depend on why you're doing this. If its for fun, I'd go with cool. Cool is fun. Cool is rewarding. Cool is, well cool. And sometimes, cool teaches you things that boring doesn't. OTOH, if there's an eventual customer in mind then maybe boring/fast is the right decision.
Speaking of performance, what's the difference in speed we're talking here? Is the performance difference noticeable, or can you only really tell by running performance analysis. Are we talking micro-seconds in a real-world situation, or seconds, or even tens of seconds. If you're looking at less than 250/300 ms for a given work-load, maybe Cool/Fun is good enough. If the difference can be measured in eye-blinks, why be boring?
|
|
|
|
|
That's a good point about perf. I've already released the sexy lexer though, and I need the reliable one so i think i'll finish it up
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
