|
Good software is not all that difficult to write. Keeping it good over time is hard especially where the team changes, and the prizes are given to the "new project".
We do, however, need to adopt the apprenticeship model to allow junior devs to get up on the first step safely.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to add insert the Cage meme that's sarcastic surprised and says: You dont say?
But I'm not that surprised when my code turns out poorly written. It usually happens when I leave the slow and steady approach and starts rushing things. Similar if you sit down to write an A4 by hand for some reason. It starts neat and orderly but as ideas build up and patience runs out it kinda dissolves in to the gibberish that's my default hand writing.
I pity the poor sod that has to go back and debug my code (future me).
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and no.
Yes, it's hard to write highly readable and maintainable code that obviously has no bugs.
But I do think that a lot of the code I see is not hard to improve.
A lot of people just never get past that "getting started" level of programming.
A lot of programmers just landed a job and never learned anything after that.
They've got this nice if-else-thingy and now they can write an entire program in a single function using a gazillion if-else branches.
Yes, it works and it's probably easy to write initially.
Unfortunately, the code still sucks and no one (not even the original author) will be able to update it in the future.
Now is it fair to say that "programming is just so hard"?
I don't think so, what we should be saying is that far too many people are just a bunch of bunglers who don't like to properly learn their profession because that takes time and effort and they'd rather have a beer and watch television.
So, I'm not saying programming is easy, but I do think a lot of bad code is written not because programming is hard, but because the authors are lazy and/or not cut out to be a programmer.
Just to illustrate my point, after about three months of programming (starting from scratch) I was able to tell my coworkers (with 10+ years of experience) that they were using try-catch completely wrong.
No one, apparently, bothered to look up how try-catch could be used properly.
The result was that each and every function had at least one try-catch block that, at best, logged the error and rethrew the exception.
Everything was logged many times, but not StackTraces because who can read that stuff anyway...
As you can guess, try-catch wasn't the only thing they didn't grasp...
At my new job, I could tell a team of five that they were using the Entity Framework completely wrong.
They were going at it for four years, but none of those five people had really looked up how everything worked.
The result was that their application was really slow and bloated (and none of them knew how to tackle a SQL Server performance problem either).
Again, they had more problems than just Entity Framework...
Good news for the people who do read an occasional book or article though.
It's quite easy to be better than everyone else 
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe because I'm not part of a coding team in the usual sense of the word. Applications are written, often enough for the use of another developer so they can do their thing. They tell me (or I tell them) what I need and then, apart from some tweaks, it's done. Typically, the melded result is in front of the users - and they're made to fit one another. You know it works because you've tested the crap out of it before you hand it off.
Could that be because we all feel this stuff "has my name on it" - if you make junk you'll be known for making junk. Pretty much, the preceding sentence says it all.
A lot has to do with experience, too. Where do users usually screw up the best of intentions? How do we stop them? How do we leave those 'stubs' for likely expansion? Expand function and feature without breaking the existing? All stuff you learn the hard way . . .
. . . and those of us in the business for a while have the scars to prove it.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: A lot has to do with experience, too. Where do users usually screw up the best of intentions? How do we stop them?
 Excellent point and one that I'd like to add to. Anticipating edge cases and use patterns is a talent that one can only acquire from being in the trenches and in most cases understanding your end user's business better than they do.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Writing [good] software IS hard, but management thinks it's magic.
Put in less snarky terms; writing good software takes time, but management doesn't believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
We can surmount the technical and human obstacles to a dramatically more secure internet, but one factor stands in the way. It's me. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
|
<rant>
I didn't read the whole thing but another crytolocker "customer" came in this morning. He open a zip file that encrypted his machine and the oh so safe google drive too. No amount of ssl is going to fix this.
There is NO SUCH THING as internet security anymore than there is LIFE SECURITY. If you do dumb things you can get robbed killed or maimed. Forget diseases. 
I'm having a bad day cause I can't do anything for him. Even the instructions to get the key from the crooks doesn't work this time.
Sometimes people come in here with dusted hard drives and haven't even thought about backup.
I like to make peoples day not tell them because of their ignorant stupidity they have lost everything.
</END RANT>
modified 27-Dec-16 23:47pm.
|
|
|
|
|
End tag does not match open tag 
Do any of these[^] help?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
No, thanks though, it's Locky and AFAWCT there aren't any Locky decryptors yet.
My closing tag keeps getting swallowed by the forum software and I couldn't figure out how to fix it so....
|
|
|
|
|
PowerLockyDecrypter Download[^]
Maybe this would work?
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't seem to work with this variant. (osiris)
Thanks a heap though.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Anders wrote:
My closing tag keeps getting swallowed by the forum software and I couldn't figure out how to fix it so....
FTFY in your OM.
|
|
|
|
|
Google's first wave of security changes to convert webmasters to encrypted HTTPS target pages that ask for login data or credit card information. Every page on Yahoo, I think (based on recent news)
|
|
|
|
|
The Consortium for IT Software Quality (CISQ) is working to create a measure of technical debt an organization carries across the aforementioned quality characteristics that takes in the amount of work required to clear that debt. About three firkins a kloc?
|
|
|
|
|
Where and how to return values from a function is a topic that can lead to passionate and opinionated discussions. As usual, there are pros and cons for many of the different options. For all your trips There and Back Again
|
|
|
|
|
FreeDOS 1.2 operating system has been released by the FreeDOS project. The new release comes with many updated packages, DOS-compatible games, and a revamped installer which eases the setup process for new users. Party like it's 1994
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to make predictions for the future, you need to find the trajectory of events in the past. So to work out what shape digital technology will likely take next year, we should look back to the major developments of 2016. "Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug."
|
|
|
|
|
Look at the past to predict the future? I wonder how many people could predict high resolution bendable screens when they invented the first color tv.
If you want to somehow plot future development create a nicely curved upwards graph and then make it a lot steeper. :P
|
|
|
|
|
What a clueless, dumb article. Why would, say, Ford want to connect their robots to those at Boeing? Why would person A want to connect their home automation with those of person B? (Ignoring that home automation doesn't make much sense in the first place.)
Having self-driving cars "talk" to each other when in close proximity is arguably critical, but otherwise, why waste the bandwidth sharing useless information?
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: why waste the bandwidth sharing useless information?
Exactly... just because it is possible it doesn't mean that it is needed
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: why waste the bandwidth sharing useless information?
... Unless it's a coffee machine, of course. The main function of coffee machines is to provide locations for sharing useless information.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
At this week’s “Love and Sex with Robots” conference at Goldsmith University in London, David Levy, author of a book on human-robot love, predicted that human-robot marriages would be legal by 2050. And the first human-robot divorce by 2051
Anyone know how to unstick after a painful eyeroll?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
