...this one uses a business rule engine (drools) to allow you to declare in a text file your idea of good taste and enforce it for your code base.There's also macker that seems to do the same.
I do know that a lot of times if the programmer gets good, while he is getting good, he learns that most people do not understand what he does. So that's really separating for programmers. Programmers are kind of driven apart by that realization that they are dealing with things that most people do not understand, and after a while they give up trying to communicate.I often find it hard, even among developpers, to communicate and understand each others. Unfortunatly I don't think computers are the only place where people find it hard to exchange ideas...
Architecture design is so important we have to do it all the time. There is a little resistance to doing it before we're sure what to design, especially producing what is called the big design up front where you write a document and then someone tries to hold you to that design; "We don't care if you made a mistake, we want you do what you said." That is foolishness, but there is no resistance to thinking.
There is resistance to "if I have kind of an idea how this is going to go and you have kind of an idea how this is going to go, instead of having the argument today let us just to do the part we need to do today, that [part] we agree on and we will wait tomorrow to see what we have to do [then]. If we need to have an argument tomorrow, it will be about tomorrow's stuff.Good wisdom ;-)
If you're a software engineer, your natural temptation is to figure out how to program it(simulation) and see how it works. What are the core mechanics of the simulation?I feel guilty about those unnecessary features. Today I try to stick to those 2 rules:
(...)
Bottom-up game design is based on an assumption that any process that is subtle or interesting to program is also going to be interesting to play with. That doesn't necessarily follow. For years I was intrigued by the challenge of programming a traffic simulation. (...) I had gotten all excited about the software engineering problems and ignored the fact that it needed to be enjoyable.
(...)
the temptation to "improve" your software with one more feature, and then one more still, just because you can. In consumer software, the result is usually a bloated, awkward mess like Microsoft Office.
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
public class ExampleTest extends TestCase {Everything find, green bar!
public void testMyMethod() {
Example myExample = new Example();
myExample.setDataSource(mockDataSource);
boolean isOk = myExample.myMethod();
assertTrue(isOk);
}
}
Example myExample = new Example();I usualy get a NullPointer, using stack trace one can easily find the problem but can I avoid it?
// oups! I did it again! forgot this line:
// myExample.setDataSource(realDataSource);
boolean isOk = myExample.myMethod();
public class Exemple {I don't like this solution because using eclipse wizard to create getter/setter methods, I can (and I already have) forget to modify the getDataSource like above and also I can use directly the instance: dataSource.
private DataSource dataSource;
public boolean myMethod() {
getDataSource().getConnection();
// ...
}
public DataSource getDataSource() {
if (dataSource == null) {
dataSource = new RealDataSource();
}
return dataSource;
}
}
When interviewing candidates for programming positions, I always look for someone who is brave enough to say "I don't know" when they need to. Candidates who can't or won't do this get red flagged; those types of programmers are dangerous.Unfortunalty, during interviews, IT manager doesn't always behave like this and take a "I don't know" answer for a lake of skill or knowledge...
Suite takes too long to runWhen I first started to use JUnit, I did it to help me get a piece of code work. This set of classes where too complicated, unforunatly I couldn't isolate this from the rest of the system and my tests became integration tests that took too long and do not even cover 10% of the tests.
(...) These tests are more often than not integration/system tests (...)
Over reliance on mock testingExemple: A classe need a file, but you can't rely on the file to be in the file system when you run the test, then you mock it up.
(...) the usage of mock/stub to stand in for real implementations is that the standins do perform in a fashion largely identical to the real thing. If this is not the case (...) then reality will tend to remind you of this mistmatch (...)
When talking to normal people, I feel like some crazy scientist no one understands.
Q: If you knew everything then that you know now, what different choices might you have made in your career?
A: (...)I didn't realize how important it was, (...), to work on things that people are actually going to use.(...) if you want to see your ideas used in the real world, you have to think about more than just the engineering.
@author someoneWhoWorkedOnlyFewMonthOnTheProject3YearsAgoUsing Cvs features like $Author$ tag, is far more usefull since it replaces the personne name with the one you use for cvs's commit.
Collective Code Ownership,since people tends to say "It's not mine look it's staticMysteryMan who made it" even if staticMysteryMan only created it 3 years ago and every one in the team refactored it since then...
INSERT INTO User(UserId, FisrtName, LastName, LastConnexion, Login, Password)
VALUES (value1, value2,....);
UPDATE User
SET LastConnexion = new_value
WHERE UserId = some_value;
SELECT UserId, FisrtName, LastName
FROM User
WHERE Login = some_value;
DELETE FROM UserIf we do the "classical" refactoring we need to modify the existing sql queries (modification are in bold/italic):
WHERE UserId = some_value;
INSERT INTO User(UserId, FisrtName, LastName)
VALUES (value1, value2,....);
INSERT INTO User(UserId, Admin, LastConnexion, Login, Password)
VALUES (value1, 0, value2,....);
UPDATE Login
SET LastConnexion = new_value
WHERE UserId = some_value;
SELECT UserId, FisrtName, LastName
FROM User, Login
WHERE Login = some_value
AND User.UserId = Login.UserId
AND Admin = 0;
DELETE FROM LoginWe can see that this modification create many changes in code.
WHERE UserId = some_value
AND Admin = 0;
DELETE FROM Login
WHERE UserId = some_value
AND Admin = 1;
DELETE FROM User
WHERE UserId = some_value;
CREATE VIEW User
AS
SELECT (UserId, Admin, FisrtName, LastName, LastConnexion, Login, Password) FROM NewUser
WHERE Admin = 0;
INSERT INTO User(UserId, Admin, FisrtName, LastName, LastConnexion, Login, Password)
VALUES (value1, 0, value2,....);
UPDATE User
SET LastConnexion = new_value
WHERE UserId = some_value;
SELECT UserId, FisrtName, LastName
FROM User
WHERE Login = some_value;
DELETE FROM UserYou can see that modifications are reduce in code.
WHERE UserId = some_value
AND Admin = 0; (not sure you need this)
So fo me the main concurrent are:
Now wich one do you choose ?! (take a bet...)
The utility of continius integration:
http://gump.chalko.com/gb/blog/SuccessStories/?permalink=Log4J-CL-EL-JV.txt&smm=y
It's incredible how the apache comunnity is agile!
"Java is a great language being destroyed by Rampaging Computer Science," writes James Turner, who knows his way around a polymorphism or two, in his latest - and characteristically combative - Viewpoint.
