Comment Re:Article text (Score 1) 773
I think there's a single elegant approach to follow that allows you to avoid all those assumptions you listed.
Imagine everyone that will be in your database does porn for a living.
Dead serious.
I think there's a single elegant approach to follow that allows you to avoid all those assumptions you listed.
Imagine everyone that will be in your database does porn for a living.
Dead serious.
...Because they weren't arguing to get to the truth, they were arguing to get social status, to "win" an argument.
I feel ya there. That kind of approach to a disagreement is one of the few things that make me lose my cool =/
Also with two people at the terminal, doesn't that means you've got twice as many people doing the same job as other companies?
Problem is, I write code maybe 2-4% of the time I am at the terminal. Other times I'm reading the code...Most of the time I'm doing other stuff...
I think you answered your own question without realizing it, but just in case I'll elaborate from what I know.
In paired coding, the coders take turns coding and watching/reading. Like you said, much of coding work isn't typing in the code itself. So having a pair of coders, with one watching, the other writing, and both reading code and thinking about it in the interim, you catch both syntax and logic errors as they happen which can save a lot of time later. Also thanks to an extra perspective, you can overcome mental roadblocks faster...unless you never, ever get stumped on how to approach a problem or implement anything.
There's also no Boolean rule going on here that states that just because two programmers work in a pair, that they also must use the same computer or spend 100% of their time at one person's computer all day or do nothing but focus on one person's code or work on the exact same part of a project. There's time to do all the other daily stuff that you mentioned, and time enough (5-10% of the daily time by your own estimation, times two, plus discussion/explanation time) even on busy days to watch each other code.
It would also be awesome if people acknowledged that there's more than one subgroup of cyclists, and that some of them treat the roads differently than others.
No kidding. I hate cyclists who don't follow traffic laws as much as, if not more than drivers. They make cyclists who obey traffic laws and act predictably/courteously look bad. It creates a negative stereotype, and it shows in these comments.
It's kind of ironic that you mention 3.0 as the impetus for getting fed up with class/level systems, given that version 3.X in D&D bucks the trend of all other versions of D&D. For that matter it bucks the trend of all the class systems of RPGs that I know of except those specifically based off of D&D 3.X. In D&D 3.X you aren't stuck with the first class you pick. You aren't a Fighter from level 1 to 20 unless you want to be. At each new level you choose what class to add to your character, whether it's your existing class or a new one. You can mix up as many classes and prestige classes as you want as you level up to make a character that suits your needs. Each class level in D&D is more a small package of abilities you choose, and at each level you also get to spend skill points as you will - another thing unique to D&D 3.X and games derived directly from it. It's the least rigid, most versatile class system that I know of. It allows you to represent all kinds of character concepts and existing fantasy/game characters accurately if you have enough levels and source books to work with. I can't say the same for other class-based RPGs.
It's true a thumbstick is better for more precise movement, but in FPS generally you can get by well enough with one move speed for running and one for crouching/stealth. At least, I don't know of any competitive (aka PvP) first-person or third-person shooters where stealth or super fine movement is more important than fast and precise aiming.
You raise a good point with the curmudgeon angle. I can't stand playing shooters with a console controller, I need a mouse and keyboard. But this does not discount that there are people very, very good with the console controller. You probably can't argue the inherent superiority of one over the other but you can certainly see how personal preference can enter into it.
Actually, you can. Keyboard and mouse is superior compared to a game pad. Complex moves are easier to do with a keyboard and mouse, and the mouse is able to track more precisely and faster than an analog stick. Why do you think console games have some degree of autoaim built in while PC games do not? But the hard evidence came in when Quake 3 arena for the Dreamcast came out. It allowed Dreamcast players to play online with PC players. The best Dreamcast players got trashed by average PC players, even when controlling for ping/latency. This came up several years ago but there should still be a decent amount of info on the findings available via google.
Don't judge the effectiveness of months-long operations by one battle. General Anthony Zinni ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Zinni )had quite a bit of experience with the US operations in Somalia and he firmly believed that the US armed forces were capable of stabilizing the region with a unified and recognized Somali government (opposed to territorial warlords), but they were ordered to leave by President Clinton prematurely. You may want to read his memoirs to get a more detailed view of how things went down there, including the Somali politics!
One thing I think that has toned down the scare factor in RE4 and 5 is the way the new "zombie" level enemies (which I'll refer to as Ganados) behave.
Zombies felt no pain, were rotting, and wanted to eat you. Ganados flinch when shot by a 9mm, look fairly healthy, and generally try to bash you to death.
Zombies required a shotgun or higher grade weapon with scarce ammo to stop in their tracks with a single shot. Ganados stop in their tracks when shot with anything. And if you shoot them in the right places, you can do a huge knock back melee attack.
The Ganados seem more like "real" people, so they're more familiar, more predictable. The older zombies were unnatural and unrelenting. If you had 5 zombies coming at you and all you had was a 9mm, you were in deep shit. But if you now face 5 Ganados coming at you, you can more easily manage them by shooting them to slow them down, or you can shoot one in the leg and do a melee attack that knocks back your target. It might even knock back or daze other enemies.
I'd like to see the next RE game feature the old unrelenting zombies (and hell, throw in the crimson heads from Resident Evil: REmake) with the new control and combat engine.
I have a Linux box, I can program my own games. They will not have glitzy graphics like the gaming house ones, but they are just as much fun. I am working on upgrading a version of ROGUE that I found on Source Forge, just as entertaining as things like EverQuest but you don't need a $6000 graphics card to play it.
Hi. Have you seen this before? I think you'd find it relevant
Take a look at the player-made content for TF2 some time. You'll find that a significant chunk of it stands up to the maps made by Valve. So I'm sorry, but your reasoning does not readily apply here.
http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/437678/50550
Are you having fun yet?
