fsloth

772 ms·

4231.
by fsloth 13y ago
Jesus Christ. Let the reader beware indeed. There are horrible suggestions here that will result in bad code if you think "Hey, that's a cool suggestion, I'll try that!". Or "Hey, I read in that blogpost this is OK
4232.
by fsloth 13y ago
I agree that my version is horribly ugly :). However, if you are not going to Follow a Plan, and while you're at it, you are attempting to Eliminate Waste as per the lean thinking movement, one may quickly follow with the conclusion th
4233.
by fsloth 13y ago
"you save a lot of time by not planning things you don't need that way" Yes, but on the other hand you will lose time if you do not plan those things ahead of time that you can plan ahead of time. It's much cheaper to ca
4234.
by fsloth 13y ago
Personally I find that this line "Responding to Change over Following a Plan" does much more harm than good. It should read "You should have a plan but should rather be prepared to change it constantly than stick with it dogm
4235.
by fsloth 13y ago
Because, due to the limited precision available to floating points, they are not precise. Example, given floats a, b, and c c = a - b might result in c == a There are volumes of literature related to this. The short explanation why it is s
4236.
by fsloth 13y ago
OOoh, nice. Is this is a direct intellectual precursor to Clojure (although I have no idea if the authors have had any collaboration)?
4237.
by fsloth 13y ago
Joel has lots of right things to say, but I'm afraid that one - "Never rewrite from scratch" - is far too sternly interpreted to the point where it is actually more harmful than beneficial. Of course you can rewrite from scra
4238.
by fsloth 13y ago
As a counterpoint, there are very good engineering reasons for standardized code layout and enforcing const correctness. They are there to optimize the use of the mental energy of the programmer. Const correctness makes it much easier to re
4239.
by fsloth 13y ago
I think the problem is not that you shouldn't think things through with academic rigor. The problem is that there is so much cargo cult junk in programming as a field that it's impossible for a novice to discern the pseudo-enginee
4240.
by fsloth 13y ago
As build systems go, this seems like a promising experiment: http://sourceforge.net/p/meson/wiki/Design%20rationale/ tl/dr: -DSL for builds with well defined semantics, leverages existing toolchain
4241.
by fsloth 13y ago
The requirements for a visual simulation and industrial process simulations are quite different.
4242.
by fsloth 13y ago
I used SICP as a template for writing a Scheme interpreter in c++. For that, it was awesome. Once you implement an immutable list and an immutable map in c++ you can write nearly homologous code to that of the scheme in SICP. Name how many
4243.
by fsloth 13y ago
"Complexity will happen on its own, so don't go looking for more." Best aphorism of the week.
4244.
by fsloth 13y ago
Yes yes, "True artists ship". In general though I would say that you can and should strive both for end-user value and overall systems quality. I agree to a point - the pattern du-jour has little to do with good code. I also agree - to a po