lgriffith

5 ms·

1.
by lgriffith 18y ago
An example of a small mind producing a small result.
2.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Sorry. I was attempting to argue with a religion. My bad. The basic premises cannot be questioned. The words of the sacred order must be followed to the letter. They must be swallowed whole without modification. They are to be held to b
3.
by lgriffith 18y ago
"Imagine 5+ bowlers all using the same lane. The more bowlers you have, the more you will have balls bumping into each other, getting in the way, crossing paths, and falling into the gutter." I suggest THAT is the problem. TDD is a band aid
4.
by lgriffith 18y ago
At least we now know the words and phrases that can annoy the most individuals most of the time. The net-net is that it can be valuable. However, the bottom line is that it is a challenge to use them in a value added way. My take away fro
5.
by lgriffith 18y ago
I see. TDD works on poorly designed, poorly implemented, basically lousy code. Code that is highly coupled, withlow cohesion, and is inappropriately modularized. This necessitates that all code must be tested every time there is a "modif
6.
by lgriffith 18y ago
How do you know your test code is testing what you need it to test without actually testing it? If not by TDD, then are you really using TDD or simply saying that you are? Like I say. Cut to the chase. Incrementally write good, clean, we
7.
by lgriffith 18y ago
TDD means you write your test before you write your code. Test code is code. You must write test code for your test code before you can write your test code. Test code for test code is code. You must write test code for your test code for
8.
by lgriffith 18y ago
and the one ring to control them all.
9.
by lgriffith 18y ago
At least the Unix wizard can pretend he is going to make it work. All he needs to do is pipe this into that and write just one more filter. Then he can .... By that time both he are you are lost in a blur of keystrokes and flashing char
10.
by lgriffith 18y ago
The VB version was a working prototype. They had built a war chest on its back but the prototype was blocking their future. It was making them vulnerable to the competition. They smelled blood in the water and it was theirs. The feeding
11.
by lgriffith 18y ago
The Three Laws of Software (with apologies to The Three Laws of Thermodynamics) 1. Software written by someone else is bad software aka. You can't get ahead. 2. Software written by me more than six weeks ago is bad software.
12.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Rule one: Rules don't always work. Rule two: Follow the rules. The challenge is to know which rules to follow and what "works" means.
13.
by lgriffith 18y ago
The Cloud absorbs all. Once you live there, your life becomes one with the Cloud. You no longer belong to you. The only answer is never to have joined the Cloud. It is already too late. Resistance is futile.
14.
by lgriffith 18y ago
The result of an internal combustion engine is the transformation of heat energy into kinetic energy. Thermodynamics says this conversion cannot be 100%. Hence some of the heat is not converted. The "wasted" heat is not lost. It is sim
15.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Again, I don't care what RMS says, what he does is what is important. Simply read his re-re-revised EULA. His focus is to prohibit useful and valuable combinations of proprietary and OSS software by requiring the free distribution of the
16.
by lgriffith 18y ago
I disagree. What he says is totally and absolutly irrelevant compared to what he actually does accomplish. The purpose of a system is what it does. Reduction to the barter system is what application of Stallman's philosophy accomplishes.
17.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Who is the customer? You or the child or both? Perhaps you are paid for the value you deliver. If not, why did you do it? However, it is a payment that cannot be transformed by exchanging it for other things you need or want. Its prima
18.
by lgriffith 18y ago
If the "distinguished professor" wished only to teach his version of political activism, he should sign up to teach a class in his version of political activism. That way, his customers (aka students) would be getting what they paid for ra
19.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Stallman objected to the fact that software could be sold so he made software that couldn't be sold. I am sure he understood its true value and priced it accordingly. Create and deliver value. Demand to be paid for it according to its val
20.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Hardware is cheap. People are expensive. However these facts are lost on most upper management. I have developed software for four decades. I was expected to develop the next generation software on what was essentially obsolete systems.
21.
by lgriffith 18y ago
If its US, its BAD! If its European, its GOOD! If it has been decided by some unaccountable academic pin head committee to be forced down the throat of others, its GOOD! If its been around for the better part of a 1000 years and used by com
22.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Hmmmm..... Maybe a not so horrible bad answer is as good as we can do. I like the notion that productivity should be considered as rate of delivery of value. Unfortunately, this gets into the sticky questions of value to whom and for wha
23.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Joe paints a three bedroom house in three days and gets paid $300. Jim paints a 5 ft by 3 ft watercolor landscape in three days and sells it for $1,000. They both get their job done in three days. One covers far more area with paint than th
24.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Evolution produced God. God didn't produce evolution. Religion and belief in God are brain noise. Its people seeing patterns in random disconnected events where there are no patterns. This has a very likely natural selection basis. If yo
25.
by lgriffith 18y ago
1% of the population make things happen. 9% of the population watch what happens. 90% of the population wonders what happened. The majority of what most people believe is wrong in one or more very significant ways. This has been the case s
26.
by lgriffith 18y ago
"...you have to find ways for the larger team to work together and still produce a quality product. " I am not sure its possible. The communication overhead of so many linkages forces incoherence. The resultant incoherence forces still mo
27.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Maybe the problem is that you have the 20-man team. There is no coherence in the code. The design is wrong, coupling is too high, and the module cohesion is too low. The large team makes certain that is the case no matter how "tight" (aka
28.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Isn't this rather like saying than since a five pound sledge hammer can't fix watches, tools suck? I find it best to use the tool that is appropriate for the task. This is true even though you might be able to force fit a particular tool t
29.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Then why do such an exhaustive automated test? Why not have your local tests, automated or not, cover the common cases and error conditions to catch programmer stupidities? Then let the actual humans do the strange corner cases. If your de
30.
by lgriffith 18y ago
Interesting idea but.... Looks like meeting that goal would constrain you to write code to be used by a robot and not by a human. There may be many cases where this is both doable and acceptable to the end user. So no problem with that.

More ›