It's either very funny or very depressing to watch executives trip over themselves to prove who has the worst understanding of what software development actually entails.
-
@gilesgoat @cloudhop my cube was outside the VP of Engineering's office. For weeks I saw him quietly fuming as he walked past. Often I'd be sketching ideas on a whiteboard, or sitting back staring at it with my feet up on a filing cabinet. Four o'clock each afternoon I disappeared off to the war room to chat with the other three system architects.
Sometimes he saw me actually typing into a code editor. "How's it going?"
"Pretty good - I've got the data structures locked down, most of the function headers in place, just working on the state machine now."
"So no code yet?"
"Not yet."
The code worked the first time it was flashed into the fpga prototype, reading and writing data to a RAM disk. In three months from the start of the project, we were booting Windows from that prototype.
For comparison, the previous ground-up firmware project took 18 months to get to the same point. Code-first only *feels* faster.
@AbramKedge @cloudhop To me coding 'unless I start already with some developed idea in mind' of course always involves quite a bit of thinking/re-watching some code I already done. I tend to 'split a big problem into a set of smaller problems' and work/test them one by one before to attempt "the big merge". Sometime I quickly type things in the editor as 'they are quick ideas I want to test' that then after much rework can turn into real functional code. Erm do I see a brony here
? -
@AbramKedge @cloudhop To me coding 'unless I start already with some developed idea in mind' of course always involves quite a bit of thinking/re-watching some code I already done. I tend to 'split a big problem into a set of smaller problems' and work/test them one by one before to attempt "the big merge". Sometime I quickly type things in the editor as 'they are quick ideas I want to test' that then after much rework can turn into real functional code. Erm do I see a brony here
?@gilesgoat @cloudhop absolutely - especially when adapting or extending existing code. My process is very much the same as yours.
The scary part of that big project was that it was the frontend processor tightly bound to a hugely complex SAS interface hardware block - I tested what I could by simulation, but that was only about 10%!
-
@gilesgoat @cloudhop absolutely - especially when adapting or extending existing code. My process is very much the same as yours.
The scary part of that big project was that it was the frontend processor tightly bound to a hugely complex SAS interface hardware block - I tested what I could by simulation, but that was only about 10%!
@AbramKedge @cloudhop Have you ever found yourself "in the paradox" of having to also write "test programs" to test the code you are writing but then those too would need testing almost leading to 'an infinite recursion of debug' ?
I really almost ALWAYS found the 90% 10% rule working .. 90% of what you wrote will be bug free and doing exactly what you wanted how you wanted .. BUT .. is the 10% that will consume 90% of the time to figure out what is wrong with it, usually few lines of code 
-
@AbramKedge @cloudhop Have you ever found yourself "in the paradox" of having to also write "test programs" to test the code you are writing but then those too would need testing almost leading to 'an infinite recursion of debug' ?
I really almost ALWAYS found the 90% 10% rule working .. 90% of what you wrote will be bug free and doing exactly what you wanted how you wanted .. BUT .. is the 10% that will consume 90% of the time to figure out what is wrong with it, usually few lines of code @gilesgoat @cloudhop I was frustrated by test-driven design purists who seemed to want to continually test whether the processor could add two numbers!
I tended not to write test programs - except where running the real program could corrupt real persistent data. Then I separated out all the "doing the work" code from the "writing the results" code, and made a parallel data-safe test version of the program.
Other than that, Debug builds of the code that added sanity checking on function parameters seemed to catch most errors.
-
@gilesgoat @cloudhop I was frustrated by test-driven design purists who seemed to want to continually test whether the processor could add two numbers!
I tended not to write test programs - except where running the real program could corrupt real persistent data. Then I separated out all the "doing the work" code from the "writing the results" code, and made a parallel data-safe test version of the program.
Other than that, Debug builds of the code that added sanity checking on function parameters seemed to catch most errors.
@AbramKedge @gilesgoat I find that relying on spec driven or test driven development too early is useless when dependencies lie about their capabilities or are just broken. I prefer prototyping a design before writing any tests just so I can work with the libraries and get a better sense of what problems I might run into. I only write exhaustive tests after I have an architecture that has a working, functional end-to-end minimal example.
-
@AbramKedge @cloudhop To me coding 'unless I start already with some developed idea in mind' of course always involves quite a bit of thinking/re-watching some code I already done. I tend to 'split a big problem into a set of smaller problems' and work/test them one by one before to attempt "the big merge". Sometime I quickly type things in the editor as 'they are quick ideas I want to test' that then after much rework can turn into real functional code. Erm do I see a brony here
? -
It's either very funny or very depressing to watch executives trip over themselves to prove who has the worst understanding of what software development actually entails.
@cloudhop getting anything resembling a specification is the hardest part of programming, the second hardest is choosing variable names
also, it's a thought activity, not a words per minute
-
It's either very funny or very depressing to watch executives trip over themselves to prove who has the worst understanding of what software development actually entails.
@cloudhop except for the rest the funny sidenote would've been, that if typing speed was the issue: Executives should've adopted Dvorak and Neo as main keyboard Layouts and improving on that more and more.
-
It's either very funny or very depressing to watch executives trip over themselves to prove who has the worst understanding of what software development actually entails.
Even before LLMs I used to have to remind people that typing is the easiest part of coding.
-
It's either very funny or very depressing to watch executives trip over themselves to prove who has the worst understanding of what software development actually entails.
@cloudhop @burnoutqueen i got over my imposter syndrome real quick when i realized management has absolutely no idea how anything works
-
It's either very funny or very depressing to watch executives trip over themselves to prove who has the worst understanding of what software development actually entails.
-
@bencourtice @coolcalmcollected @bangskij @cloudhop
I always suspected software developers were holding back human progress by being slow typists...
...they even talk to rubber duckies to infuriate C-execs!
-
It's either very funny or very depressing to watch executives trip over themselves to prove who has the worst understanding of what software development actually entails.
@cloudhop Itโs not constrained by knowledge and understanding. Which is clearly the issue. The quality is dropping. Rapidly.
-
@AbramKedge @gilesgoat I find that relying on spec driven or test driven development too early is useless when dependencies lie about their capabilities or are just broken. I prefer prototyping a design before writing any tests just so I can work with the libraries and get a better sense of what problems I might run into. I only write exhaustive tests after I have an architecture that has a working, functional end-to-end minimal example.
@cloudhop @AbramKedge Well I don't test 'minimal pieces' at all but at the present I am working on a set of cross platforms libraries ( APIs ) so I want to be sure that "if I call banana() with params P1" I get the same "external" identical result/behaviour in all the platforms. So I need "a test program" to call a number of functions in certain ways and verify "they produce really the same results" and believe me there's ALWAYS SOMETHING that falls through and/or needs to be adjusted
-
@cloudhop @AbramKedge Well I don't test 'minimal pieces' at all but at the present I am working on a set of cross platforms libraries ( APIs ) so I want to be sure that "if I call banana() with params P1" I get the same "external" identical result/behaviour in all the platforms. So I need "a test program" to call a number of functions in certain ways and verify "they produce really the same results" and believe me there's ALWAYS SOMETHING that falls through and/or needs to be adjusted
@gilesgoat @cloudhop That's a perfect use case, nice one
-
It's either very funny or very depressing to watch executives trip over themselves to prove who has the worst understanding of what software development actually entails.
@cloudhop โSerial Entrepreneurโ is the tell that they just might be all hat and no cattle.
-
@coolcalmcollected @bangskij @cloudhop
Everyone knows Beethoven's 9th Symphony takes 24 hours to perform.
-
@cloudhop โSerial Entrepreneurโ is the tell that they just might be all hat and no cattle.
@bplein should've called them "wannabe executives"
-
@bplein should've called them "wannabe executives"
@cloudhop Solo entrepreneurs is another variation.
