Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:No. (Score 1) 507 507

Now, after two similarly sized Agile projects, all I can say is it seems to be an excuse for developers to skip QA/QC procedures "because we're already into the next scrum" and end up with a mess that doesn't come close to matching the original specification at the end blaming changing requirements and "developmental issues" during the scrum process. I just turned down a contract that explicitly required Agile coding because I don't have any confidence that the end user will be satisfied with the results.

It's important to note whatever it is you think you were practicing, that's not actually Agile.

In Agile a task can't be done until it's passed QA. You're not allowed to say "Whoops we're in the next sprint guess we can't do QA hur de hur hur." You have to bring the task into the next sprint, and it's considered a failure in estimation (which then should be dealt with by the group.) You then have to bump something out of the next sprint to fit the extra time to finish QA.

Most of the time people say that Agile sucks, I've found that it's usually because engineering or management is abusing faux-Agile practices to ignore all the safeguards. Here it sounds like engineering was ignoring a Agile safeguard (task wasn't done) to cut corners, possibly aided by management who didn't want to hear about any delays or wanted to make a certain date. The honest truth with process is that a process is as only good as everyone's willingness to follow it.

Agile should really be administered by a neutral party for a team for this reason, someone who's not a member of management for that team (common mistake) or an engineer on that team. That way you avoid engineers closing tasks while breaking the rules.

Comment: Re:Microsoft was better? (Score 2) 296 296

Most of the growth that lead to Seattle's infamous traffic was/is equally to the east of Seattle proper.

To be fair, most of Seattle's traffic problems were due to Microsoft being in Redmond, and a giant lake being between Redmond and Seattle, meaning you had few very routes from where people actually lived, to where people actually worked.

If Microsoft was in Seattle (as Amazon is) I doubt they would have affected traffic to the same degree. But, as Amazon is doing, it would have led to a lot of Seattle's residential neighborhoods, especially North Seattle, going through huge changes.

Comment: Re:Running only Windows on a Mac (Score 1) 209 209

The problem is the drivers.

They won't be signed for Windows 7 and therefore won't load. Also I believe Apple uses ancient intel EFI not standard UEFI that is on modern boards. However, my information could be very outdated so someone can correct me if I am wrong as this was the case late last decade.

Newer Macs can definitely UEFI boot (older Macs notably can not UEFI boot Windows, although they will present it as an option.) Internally, I don't think it's standard UEFI internally. But it exposes UEFI 2.0 functionality to perform booting. I was trying to look up some more info, as I UEFI boot Windows 8 on my Macbook Pro, but no one seems to really keep track of the exact EFI standard Apple implements, if any. I know my 2009 Macbook Pro cannot EFI boot Windows, but my 2013 Macbook Pro can.

While it's possible the new trackpad could be an issue, even if Apple didn't sign the drivers for Windows 7, there really isn't anything stopping someone from booting Windows 7 on a new Macbook Pro. It's not like Apple offers a huge amount of support for Windows installs anyway.

Comment: Re:Running only Windows on a Mac (Score 2) 209 209

"For work reasons though I'm stuck with windows... so I'd love to skip the whole bootcamp thing entirely... but still need the drivers.."

The EFI firmware on a Mac can either emulate BIOS (like any standard EFI firmware) or on more recent Macs, do a UEFI boot. That means any OS, including Windows, that can do a BIOS or EFI boot, can run natively on a Mac. I have a friend who runs Linux on his Mac. I also have friends who run Mac Pros running Windows only because at the time Apple was getting special deals on Xeons from Apple, and they were way under what an equivalent PC cost. So they just bought a Mac Pro, wiped it, and installed Windows.

All Boot Camp does is partition the disk, it doesn't do anything at all after the partitioning, given that the rest of the capabilities are built in to the firmware.

You can download the Windows drivers for the Mac hardware separately, but on a lot of machines most things will just work using the Windows and OEM drivers. On my Mac Pro everything basically just works, but I don't get some things like an HFS file system driver or the fancy keyboard volume controls until I install the Boot Camp drivers. Sometimes the mobility GPUs don't work with the standard drivers. But for the most part, a Mac is totally just a generic Intel PC that can also run Mac OS. When it's not running Mac OS it acts exactly like a generic Intel PC. I even just install the Windows AMD drivers directly from their site for my Apple branded desktop GPU.

Comment: Re:Yet another Ted Cruz bashing article ! (Score 1) 416 416

We are beating each others to pulp on issues like abortions / police brutality / TSA at the airport while other countries are rapidly gaining grounds

"Why aren't we talking about how great at playing fiddle we are? All I see people talking about is how Rome is burning."

If it makes anyone feel better, the Chinese version of this guy will be China's downfall. While China is busy worrying about the strength of their economy, they're literally turning their major cities into giant clouds of pollution. The dip in their life expectancy will probably send their health care costs sky high, and not being able to gently onramp into a super power scale economy will lead to huge political issues down the line.

But hey, at least they spent all their time worried about other countries instead of themselves.

Comment: Re:No, It's NOT illegal (Score 1) 609 609

She's released emails to congress. And the congressional committees said there were gaps of months between emails.

She released emails to congress. Not all her email. That's why the federal government doesn't have her emails. If Congress had all her emails we wouldn't be here right now. Congress does not have all her emails, which is why we are talking about this. It's also why no one has an official record to pull these emails from.

Again, I'm not dismissing the accusations against her, but I am saying that because Congress doesn't have the full record, it's not enough evidence of anything, and it's disingenuous for senators to make claims based on that data set. But senators making disingenuous claims while knowingly not having the complete picture is nothing new.

Comment: Re:No, It's NOT illegal (Score 1) 609 609

She has months of gaps in her emails. That's not credible.

Hmmmm? Her emails haven't been released yet. If her emails are released and there are huge gaps, then it becomes suspicious. I agree that using personal email was a big mistake, and that she could be hiding things. But we haven't crossed the line yet where there is enough proof that she has destroyed email. We don't even have the email archives yet.

Comment: Re:Enlighten me please (Score 1) 450 450

But the ability to plug in a mouse and keyboard, an external display, and a wired network, and still having at least one USB port for an external hard drive or a flash drive or to charge your phone or whatever IS universally better than not being able to do that.

I was on the Apple platform back then (and maybe you were too?) but honestly, no one gave a crap. Yes, we lost our very limited selection of ADB devices to use with a Mac, but we gained a huge selection of USB devices. I had to give up a crappy third party ADB mouse for a nice quality USB standard mouse. Oh no? (I should mention, for the record, the Power Macs continued shipping with both ADB and USB for a while. So that was really an iMac problem.) The floppy disk did need to die. Everyone was already using Zip disks (which were included with most Macs.) Maybe including no writable media was a little bit of a problem, but a floppy drive certainly wasn't the answer to that.

But not the Apple USB hockey puck mouse. Let's not talk about that. Let's just... pretend that was never a thing.

SCSI was kind of a problem for a tiny bit, but Firewire was so much better. Stuff like SCSI disks and scanners being dropped hurt, but that was mostly Power Mac users who were able to add SCSI to the Power Mac G3s as an option when upgrading.

Comment: Re: Even Apple is abandoning Objective-C (Score 1) 407 407

Which brings me back to my original point. There are millions of lines of Obj-C out there, that will need to be maintained or improved for decades. Even if developers wanted to, Swift isn't compatible with a lot of use cases. And brand new Obj-C code is being written and shipped today by companies including Apple. Yes, Swift is a great new addition, but Obj-C will be around for few decades more.

By no measurable metric based in reality is Obj-C dead. Obj-C is as dead as Visual C++ became when Microsoff rolled out C#, in that it's not. Multiple languages is great. This isn't some Highlanderish situation that you're trying to make it out to be.

If OP learns Obj-C he's have a skill valuable for many many years to come. And I'm not saying that's what he should do. C++ is valuable too. But it's not a dead end, and if you say that, you really don't understand the realities of maintaining existing products, or the use cases of Swiff va, Obj-C at this point. I have projects still where Swift wouldn't be able to replace the Obj-C source entirely even if I wanted it to.

Comment: Re:Even Apple is abandoning Objective-C (Score 1) 407 407



From http://www.raywenderlich.com/74138/swift-language-faq:

So you can still use Objective-C. However, Apple seems to be encouraging you to use Swift for any new development, while not expecting you to go back and re-write all of your Objective-C code.

From www.archer-soft.com/en/blog/technology-swift-vs-acobjective-c-pros-and-cons:

Swift was created in order to replace Objective-C, however, Swift is capable of working alongside Objective-C while using Cocoa and Cocoa Touch frameworks.

None of which are first party sources. Please cite one.

Here, I'll help you out. Here is a quote from one of your own sources:
"To quote Apple, “Objective-C is not going away, both Swift and Objective-C are first class citizens for doing Cocoa and Cocoa Touch development.”"

You're purposely digging around Apple's own statements that Swift and Objective-C are first class citizens.

Wait, first class citizens? That sounds a lot like what I said in an earlier reply. Hmmmmmm.

Comment: Re:Even Apple is abandoning Objective-C (Score 3) 407 407

Of course Apple hasn't said Objective-C is a dead end. There would be a revolt and a mass fleeing from the platform if they did that.

...from their own developers? Again, out of the whole community, they have the largest Obj-C source base. If they abandon Obj-C within the next 10 years, they won't be able to ship anything. And it's going to take at least a decade to rewrite everything, if that was even their goal. During which time they ship no features. Apple can't abandon Obj-C because they need to use Obj-C. If they abandon Obj-C, they abandon Mac OS X and iOS. And they will be done in the market. And given that new API is still written in Obj-C, that's a process they haven't even started yet. In April they're shipping a brand new hardware platform that still runs on Obj-C.

For a past data point, Microsoft said with Vista they were going to rewrite Windows in C#. How did that go? Replacing an entire language is simply not realistic. If you're an engineer, you should know that.

Furthermore, once you're talking about the pain and suffering in moving everything to Swift, maintaining Obj-C looks like a far easier and more desirable costume. And that's what Apple is doing.

But they sure as hell aren't encouraging people to stay on Objective-C instead of moving to Swift.

I've talked with engineers on the Swift team who've said that's not the intention (and are wondering why the public thinks that). But please. Do go on.

I've read several articles and summaries (including on Slashdot) that have made it clear Apple wants people to use Swift.

"I've read articles from other people who think they know what they are talking about, and they wrote something that they think is right. Look at me! I'm such an expert!"

Oh, wait. Never mind. Apple person. You don't deal with the same reality as the rest of the world.

I... deal with the realities on the Apple platform?

Comment: Re:Even Apple is abandoning Objective-C (Score 4, Interesting) 407 407

Apple has made it clear their development future lies in Swift, not Objective-C.

That means you're choosing between a popular, well supported language and a dead end.

The choice should be obvious.

They've done no such thing. The biggest writer and maintainer of Obj-C code is Apple. They're sitting on a huge source base they'll continue developing on. Please link me to where Apple has said Swift is replacing Obj-C. Because they haven't. And they've said the opposite many times. Everything I've read/heard is that Obj-C will continue to be a first class language on iOS and Mac (with Swift and Obj-C both being considered first class languages.) You can have more than one language on a single platform. Shocking, I know.

Not to mention, for such a dead end, Apple's still writing a lot of new Obj-C. The iWatch OS (what runs on the watch itself) is Obj-C. Apple has not shipped a single API on Mac or iOS written in Swift. Not one. So it makes zero sense that Apple would consider Obj-C a dead language, and yet continue to write source they'll have to maintain for years in it. And if you think Apple is going to rewrite the millions of lines of Obj-C in Mac OS X and iOS in Swift, you really don't understand software engineering very well.

Another problem is that Swift is missing basic language features. Obj-C can link to C++ code. Swift? Nope. That alone means Swift can't replace Obj-C code. Everyone has C++ code they need to link to. Apple has C++ they need to link to in their own APIs. So does Adobe. Microsoft. And they'll probably fix it in the future. But you can't even approach suggesting Swift is going to replace Obj-C with a straight face until that is fixed.

Now look, I'm not trying to argue against Swift here. It's a valuable language to use and learn. This isn't a desperate "Obj-C forever!" post. But if you think Obj-C is going anywhere in the next decade or two... It can't. Apple will continue upgrading it, and continue supporting it, or else they're going to end up putting themselves in a corner where they can't even maintain their own software. That's not opinion, that's realism. It's knowing when a tool is right for a problem. And we're nowhere near Swift even being able to entirely replace Obj-C in usage.

Heck, the last Xcode beta even shipped with some upgrades to Obj-C. So I don't even need to argue that point. It's not a question of if Apple will keep advancing Obj-C. They are.

Comment: Re: Nope (Score 1) 332 332

Industry is having trouble convincing people they need HD? A large majority of the market switched to HD. They're not having trouble convincing the market to adopt HD. They already did.

That's why they ended up doing 3D because their market dried up when everyone had an HDTV.

Comment: Re: The future is not UHD (Score 4, Interesting) 332 332

Any TV you can buy today can do 60 fps over HDMI. The frame rate push has been done for years, the content just never showed up:

It's also arguable if that's the future. Everyone seems pretty happy with the current refresh rates of film, and 60 fps Hobbit wasn't well received.

A commune is where people join together to share their lack of wealth. -- R. Stallman