Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:From the pdf... (Score 1) 201

No, the best part is that NASA were able to prove 1000 times more accurately than the Chinese that the "engine" produced NO thrust and that there are some inaccuracies that they haven't eliminated.

...By arbitrarily ignoring the design used by not just the Chinese, but also the British, and coming up with their own entirely different and untested version. "Hah, we've proven that your Bugatti Veyron can't do 0-6 in under 2.5 seconds, because we tried it in our Ford Fiesta and it took over 9 seconds!".

Wee bit of "Not built here" syndrome, I wonder?

Comment Re:its why devs cringe. (Score 1) 180

FWIW, in answer to your "Can't speak for PHP" thing, PHP has, for reasons known only to the person that implemented, two incompatible dictionary type structures, objects and arrays. They're both equivalent, and because they're not compatible an enormous number of developers of third party libraries and frameworks feel the need to implement a "Give me it as an object"/"Give me it as an associative array" parameter onto any function that returns one or the other.

And lest you think "Wait! It's obvious squiggy! The associative array is obviously using hashtables and the other is typed!", that's... not (quite) the case. If PHP is optimizing anything with objects at some level, it's certainly not doing so based upon "static-after-parsing-app" set of possible member names: you can convert each to the other form with a simple cast, and you $some_array[$expression] has an object equivalent of $some_object->{$expression}. If it isn't using hashtables for objects too, then it's probably doing something even more braindead.

Comment Re:Change management fail (Score 0) 162

It is only simple because you speak English. You need to widen your cultural perspectives.

Sorry, which culture has come begging the other to employ them?

Maybe you should take that as a hint as to which of us needs to change their perspective.


And for the record, I vehemently oppose the indentured-H1B program (particularly while we have above-average unemployment and college-educated CS grads working as Barristas). I've worked with H1Bs before, and although skill-wise I've found them basically comparable to middle-of-the-pack Americans (not saying much there, but I wouldn't call them totally incompetent), the exact cultural barrier you describe made them nearly useless. They'd agree on a detailed spec for a printer driver, and three months later, proudly show off a photo editing suite. Okay, not quite that bad, but getting good work out of an H1B requires daily (or more) handholding and walking them through the same shit over and over and over. And at the end of the project, I could have just done it (and my own work) faster without the extra body in the way.

Comment Re:Formal specifications are pretty useless for th (Score 1) 180

Unless we're using "formal specification" in a form uncommonly known in the English language, ANSI C (hint hint) does, indeed, have a formal specification or three.

In fact, that's part of the problem with C. ANSI spent a lot of time trying to make their specification so generic it could be implemented on all kinds of different hardware, leaving us with a language that means virtually every bit of "obvious what it does" readable code can be re-interpreted by every optimizing compiler to mean something completely different. A big problem, considering C's system programming roots.

Comment Re: Change management fail (Score 1) 162

Sorry but DevOps requires you upgrade all servers at the same time very fast, with no regard to individual server ordering.

Did you mean NetOps? DevOps refers to a development paradigm. If your development paradigm risks actual user-impacting down-time, you need firing ASAP.
Assuming you meant NetOps, can they live with provisioning me at least four (dev, test, UAT, and training) clones of the entire production environment? No? well then, they can make their case to the CTO whether inconveniencing them or our end users will have more of an impact on the bottom line. If the CTO says "go", hell, I'll code right in the production environment - Oh, you wanted that mortgage payment to go through this week? Bummer!

Developers should never have the power to affect end users. If they do, it represents a failure not on their part, but on the entire IT corporate food chain, all the way to the top. Choosing customer-facing downtime over a few more terabytes and VMs amounts to corporate suicide.

Comment Re:Change management fail (Score 1, Insightful) 162

It takes two to fail to communicate. You should not be asking questions that require a direct "yes or no" answer. In many cultures, that is considered rude.

Sorry, what part of paying you to do a job requires me to give a shit about whether or not your failed third-world culture doesn't like answering direct fucking questions?

"Rude" does not apply. Breach of contract, however, does. I just wish more companies would catch on to this before they decide to outsource, rather than paying extra for literally nothing more than a built-in scapegoat for any and all problems.

Comment Re:No matter how common you think it is... (Score 1) 209

Many of have absolutely nothing to do with Enterprise resource planning in our day-to-day lives. A lot of us don't care about a strategic business unit. Most slashdotters are in the field of making software, not babbling almost-but-not-quite-meaningless business jargon about software.

I agree with you in general, but in this case, if you don't know those acronyms intimately, I can safely say you have zero ability to provide a useful answer to the underlying question.


As for the question at hand - They seriously use Access and Excel as the interface? Fire them now. Access and Excel have their place, and enterprise level data access ain't it. Buy a working ERP package that meets your needs, and spend your in-house development time on integrating with something that meets 95% of your needs rather than trying to bolt functionality on to a piss-poor 50% solution.

Although you might at first prefer to work with the Devil you know, the biggest problem with extending what you have now will rear its head when you try to upgrade it to the latest version, and find that virtually all your customizations have broken. Even if you pay your vendor to make those customizations, you may have somewhere to point a finger, but you can still expect months of pain telling them which parts of their own damned software they broke and need to repair.

Comment Re:Very original (Score 1) 182

He got similar results to a $1000 product, and told everybody how to do it.

I think the problem we have here comes from the comparison to a $1000 product as little more than a red herring.

He strapped a (replacement) HEPA cartridge - A well-proven technology for removing particulates from the air - To a fan. He basically made a "ghetto" HEPA filter. I have little reason to doubt it would work.

I would, however, question how well that $1000 filter performs compared to a sub-$50 Holmes/LG/Honeywell/etc filter. If Talhelm managed to get the same performance from just a replacement filter for one of those strapped to a fan, I would expect "not at all" as the answer.

So we should certainly credit him for his real "discovery" here - That expensive consumer-targetted air filters don't do any better than the Wallyworld special. Anything beyond that amounts to marketing for his new company manufacturing something even crappier than those Wallyworld specials.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Don't think; let the machine do it for you!" -- E. C. Berkeley

Working...