russellperry

7 ms·

1.
by russellperry 15y ago
I see your point, but I got the impression he was talking about a tactical/technical productivity boost rather than expanding their recruiting net or code expressiveness.
2.
by russellperry 15y ago
"...static typing becomes a big convenience in enforcing coherency across all the systems. You can guarantee that your dataflow is more or less going to work, and focus on the functional aspects...But as we move into a light-weight Service
3.
by russellperry 15y ago
True enough in general, but that cuts both ways -- I've worked with a number of longtime C++ guys that tend to optimize early, write long unreadable methods and seem positively allergic to standard OOP architectures, much less design patter
4.
by russellperry 15y ago
If you haven't watched Peepcode's Play by Play with Zed Shaw, you should. Really insightful stuff.
5.
by russellperry 15y ago
Zed's a strong cup of coffee and guys like him generally play a really healthy role in the community they are a part of, driving discussions in directions they might not have taken and playing the part of Gadfly at Large -- every community
6.
by russellperry 15y ago
Sure, but in my experience the challenge of describing imperative instructions with tabular data (in general) makes the Object/Relational problem look one-dimensional.
7.
by russellperry 15y ago
Not knocking OP's efforts as a nifty academic excercise -- good stuff. But MSI is a real world (admittedly MS) attempt at writing imperative instructions into relational tables. And, again...<shudder>
8.
by russellperry 15y ago
Anyone who thinks programming with tables is a neat idea hasn't had to write a complex Windows Installer/MSI deployment. The horror...the horror...
9.
by russellperry 15y ago
I guess the part I should have emphasized better in my original comment was "in theory"...
10.
by russellperry 15y ago
Agree with all of this, and I've made the same arguments myself. That's one reason code coverage metrics are of limited use -- they can't measure the quality of the tests. I wasn't intending to diminish the role of QA (essential) or assert
11.
by russellperry 15y ago
OR in an agile/integrated testing environment, the Black Team would be working with the dev to help develop unit tests and/or find the bug before it was delivered.
12.
by russellperry 15y ago
Ruthless and thorough QA is a good thing, but has nothing to do with TDD. TDD should in theory help prevent the developer from ever hearing from the Black Team to begin with. If the Black Team found the bug, the dev's TDD fu wasn't strong e
13.
by russellperry 15y ago
Contrast could be better but I like the layout and fonts. Simple.
14.
by russellperry 15y ago
You'd also think a cisco engineer up to such shenanigans would know enough to use an anonymous/proxy whois registration.
15.
by russellperry 15y ago
Add Josh Bloch, Google's Chief Java Architect to that list.
16.
by russellperry 16y ago
"I almost never test at the view level, and barely at the controller level" You sound like every Rails dev I know. It depends on the controller action in question. If it's a boilerplate Rails controller action, then the ROI might not be tha
17.
by russellperry 16y ago
"Like Xerox and Kleenex, the popular usage is technically incorrect, but in practice, it doesn't matter." The integrity of some acronyms is worth defending. I wouldn't want 'ACID' diluted to mean anything less than its strict definition, an
18.
by russellperry 16y ago
Romantic, starry-eyed, hopelessly idealistic and mostly true.
19.
by russellperry 16y ago
The problem I have with this theory is that Android just wasn't written as a general-purpose GUI framework/OS. It's very mobile and memory-constraint centric, and IMO would need a whole new UI layer, if not a major re-write at the OS level.
20.
by russellperry 16y ago
By this logic every language should have C-style headers. There's nothing to prevent me from creating a bloated API/interface with or without the framework forcing me to declare it external to the class, in interfaces, headers or otherwise.
21.
by russellperry 16y ago
There's some Western philosophical precedents for this tack as well. Heraclitus comes to mind, later Nietzsche, Kierkegaard. William of Occam I suppose would never allow 'classes' at all, only radically individual one-off objects. Two moder
22.
by russellperry 16y ago
Yeah exactly! 'raise "not implemented"' is how I imitate abstract classes (on the rare occasion that I need them).
23.
by russellperry 16y ago
I get what you're saying, but Ruby already allows you to do this. If you like an API/design, then go ahead and reimplement it however you like. There are no class-level contracts anywhere in Ruby that would prevent this, and therefore int
24.
by russellperry 16y ago
This simply makes no sense in a Ruby idiom (and I'm not really sure this is the best way to think of it in Java either -- I can make an API public and well-documented with or without interfaces.) I've used dozens of Ruby gems, plugins and c
25.
by russellperry 16y ago
"Kant's seperation between Phenomena and Noumena relates to the difference between interface and implementation, as well as to the concept of abstractions in general." I'm not sure Kant would allow that phenomena are all that abstract. They
26.
by russellperry 16y ago
"Aristotle takes kind of the opposite tack - he is also very focused on building ontologies and taxonomies, but he views them as constructions of the intellect imposed upon their subjects, rather than being the most fundamental reality of t
27.
by russellperry 16y ago
I like the direction you're going here, but I would argue this structure is not unique to Kant. You could read Plato (or any idealist -- Schopenhauer or Philo or Hegel for that matter) the same way. The ontological structures are broadly th
28.
by russellperry 16y ago
Allowing a class-level contract would fundamentally alter the dynamic nature of a language like Ruby. It might be cool (although I personally don't see the benefit), but it wouldn't be Ruby. What mechanism would enforce the contract anyway?
29.
by russellperry 16y ago
This might make sense for Clojure (I haven't used it) but in my years of Ruby programming (after 10 years in Java and C#) I have never thought to myself, man I'd love to have an interface here. Ruby's lack of class-level contracts is esse
30.
by russellperry 16y ago
"What if objects exist as encapsulations, and the communicate via messages? What if code re-use has nothing to do with inheritance, but uses composition, delegation, even old-fashioned helper objects or any technique the programmer deems fi

More ›