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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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:They still don't get it (Score 1) 350

by narcc (#49186469) Attached to: Microsoft Convinced That Windows 10 Will Be Its Smartphone Breakthrough

I take it you never used a Pocket PC device then?

On the contrary. I've even written applications for them. I still miss my iPaq -- slick, and writing apps was a breeze. Also miss my HP-320lx (though that one ran WinCE). I never had a problem with the stylus on either -- and I prefer it to the horribly imprecise world of capacitive touch screens we've got today.

It's a shame the galaxy note runs Android. I do love that stylus.

MS' approach now is to develop a universal app that shares the same codebase but is completely reskinned appropriately for different form factors.

Sounds like a step in the right direction. Well, Mozilla did get the jump on them there with a universal app package, though it's up to the developers to make sure their UI adapts properly to the device.

but cramming a desktop UI onto a phone didn't work

Who said anything about that?

Comment: Re:They still don't get it (Score 2) 350

by narcc (#49183841) Attached to: Microsoft Convinced That Windows 10 Will Be Its Smartphone Breakthrough

I want to do simple things like switch between tasks. I'm not in the minority here. Lots of people want that feature. Think: "Can I deal with this notification and get back to my game?"

Android, obviously, can't handle that. Most of the time, it just closes the other program when you change tasks. There's no warning, and nothing you can do to stop it. It drives my wife crazy. She was spoiled by her old PlayBook, which could not only handle task-switching, but true multitasking.

I want my phone to just work and not require constant maintenance.

Me too, which is why I own a BlackBerry. Android, as you know, still requires constant maintenance. Between the malware and other issues, it's no wonder the most popular non-game apps for Android are maintenance programs.

Comment: Re:They still don't get it (Score 2) 350

by narcc (#49182991) Attached to: Microsoft Convinced That Windows 10 Will Be Its Smartphone Breakthrough

Which is exactly what people don't want.

Speak for yourself.

The more "PC" like my mobile devices get, the happier I am. A Surface Pro is far more in-line with the wants and needs of the average user than is a Kindle Fire or an iPad. I would hope that this would extend in mobile phones as well. They're one of the few companies with an offering that could make me give up my BlackBerry.

The computer in my pocket should be a computer. Android, while popular here, can't even handle simple task-switching.

Comment: Re:Refactoring done right happens as you go (Score 1) 241

by narcc (#49182827) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality

Just so you know, when Spock used the word 'logical', he was using it incorrectly. Consequently, you are using it incorrectly as well. Please stop.

Back on topic, so you're saying that a persons religious beliefs affect their ability as a developer.

So .. Do Buddhists write better code than Hindus? Are Raeliens better developers than Shintoists? Why or why not?

Comment: Re:Refactoring done right happens as you go (Score 1) 241

by narcc (#49181121) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality

I do think a person who is sure that their religion and holy book is 100% true and that every other belief system has been proven to be fake, is not a person who thinks logically. And logical thinking is an essential skill to writing good code, and understanding code other people write.

So you think a persons religious beliefs affect their ability to program.

That's ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is your "reasoning".

Comment: Re:Easier to Analyze or Change == More Maintainabl (Score 1) 241

by narcc (#49178919) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality

Indeed. By introducing abstractions, you exchange performance and flexibility for simplicity (of one kind or another). More than one unmaintainable mess has been made by abstraction-hungry developers layering one leaky abstraction on top of another in a vein attempt to restore some of that flexibility.

This is why I'm a fan of top-down design. It tends to find the right balance almost automatically.

Comment: Re:Refactoring done right happens as you go (Score 3, Insightful) 241

by narcc (#49178893) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality

Of course part of the reason is that I refactor as I write.

I'm not sure what that has to do with writing "badly formatted code", but I'd still caution against that. Some of the best advice I ever received: "There are no good writers, only good rewriters." I've found this to be true for code as well. It's amazing how much you can improve your code once you've distanced yourself from it a bit.

Comment: Re:Refactoring done right happens as you go (Score 1) 241

by narcc (#49178883) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality

So maybe I am just as bad as he is. But I'll bet I'm a better software engineer.

That doesn't make sense to me. Why would a persons beliefs about religion (or politics, race, potato chip flavors) have any influence on their ability to write computer programs?

Do you think Buddhists write better code than Hindus? Are Raeliens better developers than Shintoists? What could possibly compel you to put forward such a silly belief?

Comment: Re:This should not be on the front page (Score 2) 241

by narcc (#49178863) Attached to: Study: Refactoring Doesn't Improve Code Quality

I'd rather have a readable and maintainable 4500-line function than an unreadable and unmaintainable 45-line function.

I remember, years ago, standard advice to students to break up code in to functions when some process got over some number of lines. Know what we got? A lot of really odd functions of similar length, as they broke things apart at seemingly random boundaries! I'm still deeply suspicious when I hear people talk about a proper length for functions.

It's time to let that one go, and teach students that while shorter is often better, length doesn't really matter that much. They ought to factor out functions when they see them and when it makes the program more readable. I'll suggest this as a new rule-of-thumb: functions should do just one thing and be named accordingly.

(Still, 4500 lines? Damn, that's big.)

There are three kinds of people: men, women, and unix.

Working...