139 reputation
4
bio website
location United Kingdom
age 29
visits member for 3 years, 6 months
seen Jul 16 at 0:18

Jul
4
awarded  Critic
Jan
10
revised How to keep a big and complex software product maintainable over the years?
edited body
Jan
10
revised How to keep a big and complex software product maintainable over the years?
added 12 characters in body
Jan
10
revised How to keep a big and complex software product maintainable over the years?
added 102 characters in body
Jan
10
answered How to keep a big and complex software product maintainable over the years?
Dec
23
answered A free game-development language?
Dec
15
comment Should I encourage junior developers to use explicit or implicit typing?
@GiddyUpHorsey, IEnumerable<string> e = new List<string>(); is better than var+cast in every way, the main advantage being safety: with cast you have to always be vigilant about whether your cast can fail. In case of explicit variable typing the compiler ensures that the cast can't fail.
Dec
9
comment Does simplicity always improve Readability?
Stephen, actually when reading a three-digit number like 100 you have to perform two multiplications and two additions (0+10*(0+10*1)). However, having used to this notation, you don't even notice that. This again shows how subjective the notion of simplicity can be.
Dec
6
revised Does simplicity always improve Readability?
added 2 characters in body
Dec
6
comment Is there a term used when internal variables are declared public and accessible?
@gnat, public Morozov is a more specific pattern, when a child class grants public access to the protected members of its parent. :) (which is what Pavlik Morozov did)
Dec
6
awarded  Teacher
Dec
6
revised Does simplicity always improve Readability?
added 12 characters in body
Dec
6
awarded  Editor
Dec
6
revised Does simplicity always improve Readability?
added 457 characters in body
Dec
6
answered Does simplicity always improve Readability?
Jun
15
comment Will real world applications ever need a 128-bit flat address space?
@Thorbjørn, I think the point is that there are currently no technologies invented which could potentially help miniaturisation much, and even if they will be invented in future they will take a very long time to be used in practice (which is supported by the "man on the moon" argument too!), so one can safely say that 2^64 is enough forever because she will not be proven wrong while being alive. @vartec, +1
Jun
2
awarded  Supporter