thanks and i agree especially the no-compromise. however my rant continues - there must be a better way.
i am going to look for the man from borland (i think his name is kahn). On Oct 31, 9:59 am, Cerebrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the problem lies in the mindset of the programmer. Every > budding programmer, when asked, will readily recite to you the tenets > of OOP. But do they really understand them enough to *use* them ? No, > I don't see it happening at all. Writing performant code requires you > to know about ten different ways of accomplishing the same thing, each > of which is suited to a particular scenario, so that you can decide > which one is best in this case. How many programmers can think of one > method (let alone ten), without having to resort to Google ? Writing > secure code requires you to think pessimistically - "All input is evil > unless proven otherwise.", for instance. How many programmers validate > every single piece of input they receive, as a principle ? > > For most programmers, code reusability is being able to copy and paste > the code everywhere with minor modifications, but that's not actually > reusability. The problem is also that procedural programming (as > opposed to Object Oriented) is too easy and doesn't require you to > think about the possibilities beforehand. It allows you to dive right > in and apply the patchwork as you go. > > Secondly, the problem is in the education. We stress inordinately upon > the theory of OOP, rather than the implementation. I think OOP is not > something to learn... it is a skill to inculcate. And it takes > sustained effort and strict personal standards. Most IT certification > exams expect a candidate to select a correct option in a multiple > choice format, instead of requiring them to come up with some code. > > The problem also lies in the mindset of the Management. Tight delivery > schedules and strained resource availability further reinforce a focus > on getting the job done, not on how it was done or how scalable and > performant it was. If (or rather "When") problems are encountered > later, quickfixes are the best solution to the matter, rather than a > complete redesign to match changed requirements. > > You can get an idea of the situation from the fact that most of my > colleagues regard me as eccentric because I am the only one who will > not compromise on the quality of my own or my team's code. > > You ask why we're still at the same level as years ago. I think it's > because the creation of software is driven by business considerations > and not the sole pleasure of creating software. The reward is not in > the work itself but in the (material) gains associated with the > completed product. Maybe that's why coders are not artists, but just > labourers. > > *rant over* ;-) > > On Oct 31, 1:48 am, flatfilehater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So I am not the last survivor of the Osborne 'laptop' age! > > > I am a coding addict - I still get a kick out of having things work > > and seeing others work with it. > > > the root of my gripe is actually stuff like php and mysql which most > > isp's over here (south africa) use. > > > when i attacked these things, it was a step backwards (probably many > > steps). it was like dealing with random access records from flat > > files (but with built in filters and indexing). I thought I had died > > and this was hell. > > > i am getting into xml (slowly) and am searching for a way to deal > > decently with many to many's. > > > any ideas out there? > > > On Oct 21, 8:16 pm, Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ah, someone else that remembers that era!! > > > > I guess there are still enough of us out here that still like to write > > > code. Unfortunately, most of the "code generators" out there don't do a > > > very good job or don't have the ability to generate all the possibilities > > > that we need. Therefore, we use them to get close and then fill in the > > > blanks with actual coding. > > > > By doing actual coding I think we can achieve the level of re-use if we > > > code > > > it properly. After a bit of coding, we find that we collect a large enough > > > library that we can start re-using what we have already written. However, > > > many students out there that frequent this group only accomplish what they > > > can with the code generators (a.k.a., wizards) and don't go beyond that > > > stage. > > > > I think it will be long after we're out of here that someone will be able > > > to > > > sit down at a computer, tell it what type of program it wants and have the > > > computer create it for them. However, that only seems to exist in science > > > fiction right now. > > > > ...Glenn > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:16 PM, flatfilehater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > as reply to mails, i am from pre-ms generation. > > > > > when ms arrived the things had to be ibm compatible - it worked by > > > > creating a relatively common denominator (lowest maybe) for making > > > > mass software feasible (lotus 123 was the spreadsheet of the era but > > > > visicalc was the first; ashton tate's dbase became the database entry > > > > level later). > > > > > the paradigm shifted with borland turbo pascall - libraries of code > > > > were applied to cut down repetitive coding (i think borland was the > > > > first to use the term window - the mouse arrived with ventura > > > > publishing). > > > > > this shift was a breath of fresh air and we all said that we were well > > > > on the way to a new generation which would automate even further and > > > > almost interpret things into plain english. > > > > > now about 25 years on, we are still tick-ticking in code via a babel > > > > of languages - analyse the repetitive nature of the info being sought > > > > in the group and it seems that most are reinventing a wheel. > > > > > of course i am getting old and cranky but not without reasonable cause > > > > - the very attainable things and logicalprogresshave not happened. > > > > > time for coffee and a smoke!- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
