Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:this (Score 1) 495

by mad.frog (#36696274) Attached to: Are You Too Good For Code Reviews?

No, that is 100% wrong.

The purpose of QA isn't to *find* bugs; the purpose of QA is to *verify* that *there are no bugs*.

If you are giving something to QA with unknown deficiencies, and expect them to find them for you, you should be looking for another line of work.

(Known deficiencies of a work-in-progress are a different story, of course...)

Comment: Re:Pure Arrogance (Score 1) 495

by mad.frog (#36696230) Attached to: Are You Too Good For Code Reviews?

Code review is purposefully a politically loaded process which enables management to divide and conquer and keep wages down.

You must have an awfully dysfunctional management. On my current team, code reviews came about by demand from the engineers, not from management.

Re: anonymous code reviews, meh, that could be made to work, I guess, but I don't see the point -- I'd rather have a discussion in the open.

Comment: Re:Cool hack (Score 1) 250

by mad.frog (#36480478) Attached to: JavaScript Decoder Plays MP3s Without Flash

> Compared to a Silverlight solution, the JS player is 3.5 times larger (535kb vs 154kb), uses about 3.6 times as
> much CPU power (25% vs 7%), and has to have significant modifications to work in multiple browsers. Not really progress. ...compared to a Flash solution, the JS player is >100 times larger (a Flash version could be under, say, 4k, including UI, since the MP3 decoder is built in).

Comment: Re:LLVM (Score 2) 97

by mad.frog (#36000708) Attached to: Inside Mozilla's New JavaScript JIT Compiler

A guy did in fact transplant LLVM in place of Nanojit (in Tamarin rather than SpiderMonkey, but close enough):

And found that LLVM didn't really produce an overall win for this sort of code generation. LLVM is nice for ahead-of-time-compilation, but isn't a good fit for just-in-time.

Comment: Re:Java is not for scripting. (Score 1) 444

by mad.frog (#35556424) Attached to: Mirah Tries To Make Java Fun With Ruby Syntax

Smaller does NOT automatically mean "easier to read", in Python I often find the opposite is the case.

If I'm scrolling through unfamiliar Python code and see

      def foo(somearg):

If I want to know the expectations of "somearg" I'm going to have to (1) hope for a comment, (2) analyze the body of foo, or (3) analyze all the callers of foo. Or some combination.

If I'm scrolling thru similar Java code and see

      public function void foo(SomeType somearg)

I have a much better idea about the input specifications.

Comment: Re:I like the Java syntax (Score 4, Insightful) 444

by mad.frog (#35556402) Attached to: Mirah Tries To Make Java Fun With Ruby Syntax

Really? You really like writing

Stop right there: it's not a question of writing, it's a question of reading.

I spend *waaaaay* more time *reading existing code* than I do writing new code. Designing a language to optimize readability is IMHO far more important than trying to save a few keystrokes.

In the example above, I find the Java syntax completely readable, though clearly not as terse as it could be. The second example I find readable as well, but not vastly more so than the Java example.

If you're optimizing for coding time, you're doing it wrong.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson