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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:this (Score 1) 495

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

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

> 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

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

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

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.