flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
flat assembler > Heap > Why Software Sucks?

Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
DimonSoft



Joined: 03 Mar 2010
Posts: 204
Location: Belarus


rugxulo wrote:

DimonSoft wrote:

Garbage collecion is not just overrated. It is the case of “one solution should suit all needs” and “yes, your user has infinite amount of memory, don’t care about flushing and taking the garbage out”. A mechanism suitable for cases so rare that it is not worth being implemented even in such cases is being used for nearly all cases.


OberonOS never required infinite amounts of memory.


I was actually referring to the fact that garbage collection is an abstraction that makes a program think that dynamic memory is available in infinite amounts. Of course, the whole point of garbage collection is to make such an assumption possible while still requiring finite amount of memory. And that is where the abstraction leaks.
Post 14 Apr 2018, 18:31
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DimonSoft



Joined: 03 Mar 2010
Posts: 204
Location: Belarus


Furs wrote:
Even coding in something "portable" like C/C++ "ISO mode" you still have to learn that -- not the specific platform you code for, but the C/C++ "virtual machine" specification (which is even harder than the actual details of a platform actually). If you don't, you're a poor programmer and your software will suck.

<…>

I know that HLLs are intentionally meant to hide a lot of stuff, that's my whole point. It's not necessarily the fault of the HLL directly (hey, I love C++), but indirectly: they enable people who shouldn't even be programming to still make something -- albeit, that "sucks", but whatever.


I wish such “programmers” knew their place in the world. No big deal that they write something. They just should shut up and stop teaching others. The problem is that nearly everything in web and mobile programming and most of desktop applications are written with “it works, it sells, so I don’t care” in mind and this approach is widely advertised.


Furs wrote:
it becomes more and more a "diamond in the rough" kind of thing


Sad but true.
Post 14 Apr 2018, 18:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15636
Location: Thasus


DimonSoft wrote:

rugxulo wrote:
First you make it work, then you prove it correct, then you optimize.

First you spend time to design what you’re going to write.

First you make one to throw away, then you make the real product. But ... of course, once you've spend all the time making the first one, your boss puts it into production and puts you on a new project. So the throwaway becomes the real thing and everyone hates it.
Post 15 Apr 2018, 14:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
nyrtzi



Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 189
Location: Off the scale in the third direction


revolution wrote:

DimonSoft wrote:

rugxulo wrote:
First you make it work, then you prove it correct, then you optimize.

First you spend time to design what you’re going to write.

First you make one to throw away, then you make the real product. But ... of course, once you've spend all the time making the first one, your boss puts it into production and puts you on a new project. So the throwaway becomes the real thing and everyone hates it.



I guess this is the reason why it is said that software should be written to be easy enough to change and maintain so that you won't need to worry about later maintainers picking the thing up knowing your home address. And any system valuable enough will be fully rewritten sooner or later anyway. Probably later though.
Post 17 Apr 2018, 21:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MSrobots2



Joined: 21 Oct 2017
Posts: 5

The main problem why people think they are good programmers, painters, car drivers or whatever is the following.

To assess if you are good at something needs the same skills to be good at it in the first place.

So it often happens that somebody thinks he is good at something, (and is not) because he is lacking the skills to even know if he is good at it or not.

my 2 cents,

Mike
Post 19 Apr 2018, 02:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15636
Location: Thasus


MSrobots2 wrote:
The main problem why people think they are good programmers, painters, car drivers or whatever is the following.

To assess if you are good at something needs the same skills to be good at it in the first place.

So it often happens that somebody thinks he is good at something, (and is not) because he is lacking the skills to even know if he is good at it or not.

my 2 cents,

Mike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Post 19 Apr 2018, 04:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
nyrtzi



Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Posts: 189
Location: Off the scale in the third direction


nyrtzi wrote:

revolution wrote:

DimonSoft wrote:

rugxulo wrote:
First you make it work, then you prove it correct, then you optimize.

First you spend time to design what you’re going to write.

First you make one to throw away, then you make the real product. But ... of course, once you've spend all the time making the first one, your boss puts it into production and puts you on a new project. So the throwaway becomes the real thing and everyone hates it.



I guess this is the reason why it is said that software should be written to be easy enough to change and maintain so that you won't need to worry about later maintainers picking the thing up knowing your home address. And any system valuable enough will be fully rewritten sooner or later anyway. Probably later though.



Writing software that is easy to change and maintain? Easier said than done. The time pressure, etc. involved rarely allows enough attention to quality.

And as far as rewrites go there is always the second system effect.
Post 19 Apr 2018, 06:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MSrobots2



Joined: 21 Oct 2017
Posts: 5


revolution wrote:

MSrobots2 wrote:
The main problem why people think they are good programmers, painters, car drivers or whatever is the following.

To assess if you are good at something needs the same skills to be good at it in the first place.

So it often happens that somebody thinks he is good at something, (and is not) because he is lacking the skills to even know if he is good at it or not.

my 2 cents,

Mike

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect



Thank you @revolution,

it even has a name, cool. I found out by personal experience, as usual.

Dunning Krueger effect. Nice.

A long time ago some doctor told me that I have OCD. I told him that he is a moron, and even IF he is right, it should at least be spelled CDO, so that the letters are in the right order...

Mike
Post 21 Apr 2018, 20:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2018, Tomasz Grysztar.
Powered by rwasa.