Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Shying away from OOP(s) (Score 1) 674

May be fine for small, isolated projects, but when you are dealing with a whole ecosystem of re-usable modules that can be recombined in any number of ways, internal consistency is just as important as 'my concrete thingy passes the unit test'.

From their perspective you may be creating an e-bureaucracy that only you or a handful of architects fully understand. It gives you the sense of power but slows them down because they can't grasp your "ecosystem" or libraries quickly.

And when they complain you perhaps tell them "be smarter and spend more time learning them, or quit so we can hire faster library grokkers".

That's how communism (or extreme socialism) viewed economic systems: factor everything into as few parts as possible (parsimony) for efficiency and consistency. You don't need 5 brands of peanut-butter like those market nations have.

It sounded wonderful on paper, but did poorly in practice (except for the top-level bureaucrats).

Sometimes reinventing the wheel is more efficient for humans than grokking and managing a Department of Wheels. Perhaps such duplication working is counter-intuitive, but hey, some things just are.

Comment Re:Shying away from OOP(s) (Score 1) 674

Another problem is that "method" and "message" are not well-defined (or consistently defined among proponents).

In many cases one has to first define "object" before "method" is defined, and method is part of one's definition of object. Thus, it's a circular definition.

(I suppose circular definitions are not necessarily wrong or erroneous, as one may define recursion as "something that uses recursion". But it will confuse the daylights out of a lot of people.)

Comment Well-factored [Re:Shying away from OOP(s)] (Score 1) 674

'Well factored' is, to an extent, a matter of opinion.

Indeed. And well-factored is not necessarily the same as "useful". I've made what I thought was "beautifully factored code" and patted myself on the back thinking how clever am I.

THEN the domain requirements changed, and went against the grain of my factoring, creating a mess. Parsimony can show you how to factor an existing abstraction, but says nothing about the future.

The most future-proof abstractions in my observation are bunches of smaller abstractions that can be discarded as needed: a set of little functions or utilities that can be glued together as needed or ignored as needed.

"Big umbrella" integrated frameworks are a disaster waiting to happen because they are too hard to unwind: it's all an interconnected ball of yarn. There is more annoying glue-work between the abstractions when using smaller abstractions, but they handle future changes better. It's better to live with more glue. Break big abstractions into parts that can be used independently.

Comment Re:Chinese Gov't Games? (Score 1) 262

I can partly agree, but their rapid expansion has also left notable gaps that are still third-world-ish. For example, their horrible pollution, and poor working conditions in e-waste. U.S. faced similar problems around 1900. It took a few decades to adjust.

(P.S. sorry for missing the "a" before "double standard". Modnays.)

Comment Chinese Gov't Games? (Score 2, Insightful) 262

China Labor Watch writes...

Is it possible this is gov't propaganda to benefit Chinese companies at the expense of Apple?

I'm sure a lot of factories don't follow written guidelines: it's still a 3rd world country with a lot of bribery and cruft. (Then again, I've seen abuse in USA cubicle-land also.)

There have been complaints from other co's that Chinese gov't inspectors inspect and/or publicize with double standard on foreign firms.

Comment Re:Not article worthy... (Score 1) 3

It's not a complicated matter: most enterprises and important agencies have some policy about email distribution.

Yes, but what do they look like, who verifies compliance, how often, etc. Perhaps it is a complicated matter. Just writing policy down is no guarantee it will be read or followed. I see that personally at my work.

It seems logical there should have been a "compliance team" or at least a person who monitors messages on a daily or periodic basis besides those involved directly in the domain (State Dept.). But if that's not logical, I'd like to hear the reasoning. Routine inspections should NOT be the job of the CEO or equiv.

Slashdot Top Deals

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...