Reputation
1,207
Top tag
Next privilege 2,000 Rep.
Edit questions and answers
Badges
2 9 23
Impact
~71k people reached

Mar
8
revised Why are scientific programming languages so weird?
added 10 characters in body
Feb
26
comment How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
@MaciejPiechotka I had said several times that we have many programmers and one component for a programmer. So your second part is also for some other case, sorry. I understand, that defining processes for small projects is fine and simple, but we should solve tasks that are set, not other ones that are simple.
Feb
26
comment How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
@MaciejPiechotka If it is a 4-men project, they all know their scopes of work. I am talking about a large project, with tens of programmers. And not knowing who is better in what could be fatal.
Feb
25
comment How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
@MaciejPiechotka But that would work only if they already know B a bit, to find that A-B connection while analyzing A, and know that b is the best specialist in B.
Feb
25
comment How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
@Mr.Mindor I would also add the automated testing for UI. It is very demanding and covers really many problems. But I am afraid that when a group is guided by a person, who obviously tries to move his own guilt to somebody else, it needs special treatment
Feb
25
comment How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
@Mr.Mindor "...code reviews can only help..." Without any doubt. But they are not enough. And this post insists that they are ALL we need.
Feb
25
comment How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
I agree this may be enough in a normal project. But if the project already HAS bad architecture so that components are too often dependent on each other? And in this case IMHO, we have to choose carefully who will do which code check.
Feb
25
comment How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
@Disco3 The connection A-B could be easily found by 'b' only. Who will tell the programmer 'c' that he should check THESE TWO components?
Feb
25
comment How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
@Plutor You want every piece of code to be checked by every programmer in the group? If yes, it is impossible, if no, where is the profit?
Feb
25
answered How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
Feb
25
comment How to address the concerns of the software architect but still maintain collective code ownership?
Let's many programmers a,b,c,d,... made components A,B,C,D.... Now the programmer 'a' wants to make a change in his component A that will cause a problem in the component B. Programmer 'a' doesn't know about it. I his code would be checked by the programmer 'b', everything is OK, the problems will be found. But the code checker was chozen arbitrary. So, with the great probability it won't help. How this could help the QA with his problem?
Feb
25
comment Why are scientific programming languages so weird?
@phresnel sorry, look better this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoare_logic#Assignment_axiom_schema
Feb
25
comment Why are scientific programming languages so weird?
let us continue this discussion in chat
Feb
25
comment Why are scientific programming languages so weird?
@phresnel Of course, it IS the assignment.
Feb
25
comment Why are scientific programming languages so weird?
@StevenBurnap Very interesting. I had worked on similar machine-level language. It is a powerful and complex way programming.
Feb
25
comment Why are scientific programming languages so weird?
@phresnel Math, among other divisions, has logic. And logic, among other divisions, has formal systems theory. These ones HAVE assignment operators. At my university and books that I had read, it looked as '→'. And surely, it couldn't be '=', as the meaning of the last was set long ago.
Feb
24
comment Why are scientific programming languages so weird?
@StevenBurnap Wow! stupid me! And I thought it was a dialect of FORTRAN, due to the similarity of the name. I'll look at it. Thank you for the info... Lower level than C - possible. But was it more powerful? Why it lost to C?
Feb
24
answered Stopping spiders or unauthorised users from viewing files
Feb
24
revised Why are scientific programming languages so weird?
edited body
Feb
24
comment Why are scientific programming languages so weird?
@okiharaherbst I am glad to speak on such interesting theme and I thought I am teasing you... There are millions of paper books printed on the word. But alas - they are far less modern than e-books. The times in IT changes so quickly that all four generations of IT languages live side by side. Assembler, Fortran, C, Java+Spring... Another thought - FORTRAN 1957 and Fortran 2008 with Recursive allocatable components are dammed different!