Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I've always thought that the concept of Marshalling had a bit of a funny name.
My mental conception of the process would always involve an ol' wildwest gunslinging marshall who would coerce objects into serialized form at gunpoint.
(source: answers.com)
I just found out the real reason Marshalling is called what it's called and chuckled.
(edit) Ok - this is what I came across on wikipedia:
Data marshalling is so named because
it was first studied in 1962 by Edward
Waite Marshall, then with the General
Electric corporation.
Did you know the real reason, or perhaps you too are familiar with my gunslinger?
A marshal is a something/someone who controls flow or probably more precisely - controls structure (see comments below). For example at a racing event you get track marshalls. (I know that's real world and sport and so may not be appeal to many here).
If data being transferred across a boundary then I think controlling that flow is very aptly described as marshalling. I think your idea of marshalling is another good example of this term used correctly. I do think that using an existing term should be de rigueur as opposed to creating new jargon.
It's more like the "grand marshal" of a parade or the "marshalling grounds" for a parade. That makes sure that everything goes out in the right order even if they don't arrive in the right order. Thinking of my strings as chimpanzees in little cars makes interop a little more fun for me :-)
A footnote in the docs for the python marshal module says the following:
The name of this module stems from a bit of terminology used by the designers of Modula-3 (amongst others), who use the term ``marshalling'' for shipping of data around in a self-contained form.
Your imagine of "Marshalling" is like mine is. it's like a person from an old wild west film where the main actor is played by John Wayne. And it's so a perfect picture of what the software actually does: you will set to prison if you do some silly things in your program
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
The structure of a FiM++ program requires that it end with the closing of a letter and the code author's name in a specific manner.
Dear Princess Celestia and Stack Exchange and String: A Sample:
...
Your faithful student, Southpaw Hare!
According to the language specification, the keyword "Your faithful student," (including the comma but not the following space) is used as an end tag for class definitions, and the following name is a comment with no syntactical effect.
The fact that the author is automatically included (if not strictly required) in every file makes me wonder if it can be used as a form of interpretable documentation akin to Java Docs. In other words, that other programs or editors would be able to parse out this name and use it in some manner.
What is the requirement of such internal comment-based documentation? Is there anything in this particular type of syntax that would cause problems?
Is the keyword sufficient to fit with the theme? It occurs to me that the lack of ability to use "Your faithful students," for a plural form (or possibly "Yours faithful," or "Yours truly," for an ambiguous version) would make listing multiple authors look awkward and unnatural (and looking like a natural human-written letter is one of the core design paradigms).
If creating a Java Docs methodology was considered, then what other features should be included? For one, a date seems common. Including some form of date comment at the top of the letter would probably look natural and not defy the design paradigm.
Since the language is new, unfamiliar to most, and honestly quite silly, here are a few resources to consider:
Original Release Announcement
October Followup
Sorry no one's given this any concern before me!
I'm heading development of the language, so I think I have a good grasp on the answer, here.
What is the requirement of such internal comment-based
documentation? Is there anything in this particular type
of syntax that would cause problems?
I've never considered an auto documentation technique like Javadoc, so there is no formal syntax for that. The compiler I'm working on completely discards comments, so it won't support it, but I'm sure it wouldn't be terribly hard.
Is the keyword sufficient to fit with the theme? It occurs to me
that the lack of ability to use "Your faithful students," for a
plural form (or possibly "Yours faithful," or "Yours truly," for an
ambiguous version) would make listing multiple authors look awkward
and unnatural (and looking like a natural pony-written letter is one
of the core design paradigms).
The idea of the author name on the last line was intended for the foremost author of the report, so multiple authors was never suggested before now. However, Your faithful students, would work nicely!
If creating a Java Docs methodology was considered, then what other
features should be included? For one, a date seems common. Including
some form of date comment at the top of the letter would probably
look natural and not defy the design paradigm.
Indeed! Perhaps something at the bottom of the report, like
(Written 2013-04-11)
Hope this help you. You have some great ideas, here, too! You should join the team!
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
What is the difference between a software development pattern?
A methodology such as agile DSDM etc how is OO classed as a methodology and a paradigm?
How can OO be applied to a methodology such as agile if itself is a methodology?
Whats the difference between a paradigm and a methodology or a development pattern?
Thanks for any replys.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty
said, in a rather scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean -
neither more nor less." "The question
is," said Alice, "whether you can make
words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty,
"which is to be master - that's all."
Through the Looking Glass.
Well, not my answer, Lewis Carroll's.
Looking at only one of the questions you asked: "...how is OO classed as a methodology and a paradigm?"
That, at least, has a fairly simple answer:
Object Oriented Design is an analysis methodology.
Object Oriented Programming is an implementation paradigm.
OOD involves analyzing a problem in terms of objects and their interactions. OOP involves implementing a solution as a set of interacting objects.
"Agile" (I hate that name -- though I'll admit "eXtreme Programming" is worse) is really about project management. Just for example, you can apply Pair Programming about equally to something like assembly language or C as to a language that explicitly supports object oriented programming (though being a relatively new idea, it's probably used most often in conjunction with relatively new languages).
Edit: How I'd separate "methodology" from "paradigm" is fairly simple (at least in theory).
Paradigm is really just a fancy word for "example". If I'm following that example to a meaningful degree, the source code (for example) to the program should contain direct, (fairly) clearly defined results from having followed that example. Just for the obvious one, a class publicly derived from another would be a pretty obvious indication of OOP.
A methodology, by contrast, doesn't necessarily show a direct, definable result in the source code. Just for example, there's unlikely to be much in the source code to indicate whether it was developed using "Agile" methodology. I might be able to take a guess if (for example) all the source code files contained comments indicating two authors, but (at best) it would a rather indirect indication of one specific piece of the methodology.
I said in theory, because things can get a bit "fuzzy" at times. If I try hard enough, I can probably write pretty close to pure procedural code, even in a language like Smalltalk that favors objects almost exclusively. Likewise, if I try hard enough I can write OO code in something like C that doesn't really support it. In a case like this, the indications of following the paradigm will usually be harder to find or define than in a more straightforward case.
Methodology is about people. Paradigm is about software.
A paradigm is a way of thinking about a problem - so objects, a relational database, lambda calculus are all models for getting a problem into your head
A methodology is a way of actualy building something based on the paradigm.
If you like, the paradigm is the architect, what are building? should it be a suspension bridge or an arch. The methodology is the engineering, how many cables, how thick, which subcontractors.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have noticed I do not code as much as I use to. Today I dedicate more time to analysis and design, then I communicate that design to programmers. Then they do the coding. This has affected my coding productivity, because I must consult references and rely on intellisense. Things are becoming more complex everyday
Now, here is the irony. If I were to hire a programmer and ask him/her to sit in front of a computer, I may ask to do some coding and I would check abilities. I would evaluate them based on their use of memory vs. consulting references. Maybe I will prefer that programmer who did not consult too much, but who knows what they are doing.
What is your opinion and experience?
I would say that a developer who knows how to find the answers is better than one who has an overall good knowledge already. I find that intellisense is a good tool for finding answers, besides it is too much to remember all method names, arguments, overloads, etc.
I use memory to get me into the right general area (e.g. knowing which classes to use or at least which namespace they'll be in) and then often Intellisense/MSDN for the exact method name or arguments to use.
Having said that, Stack Overflow is improving my ability to code without any references (or even compilation) - I'm sure code will just work out of the box for me more often now than it used to. (I tend to post and then check the code works, add links to MSDN etc - assuming I'm reasonably confident in the approach.)
Someone knowing what resources are available, and how to find the answers, and how to effectively debug - these are qualities I look for now in prospective employees.
I used to consult my memory only, but two things have happened:
Class libraries have gotten larger, so has the number of languages available
The ratio of programming-related memory to personal-life-related memory has shifted away from code
Programming today is also eight times harder than it was when I started. I used to work on 8-bit machines, now I'm working on 64-bit ones. :)
I once was at a job interviewed with the CTO of a company. He asked a question based on a real life problem the company had a while back and solved. It was a multi step problem.
I was standing in front of a whiteboard working through my solution and struggling through a particular part, a part I would use google for before even attempting it, had I been tasked with solving this problem for real instead of for an interview. He asked me at that point, "would you do anything different if this wasn't an interview question." I responded, "Yes. I would exhaust all possibilities of using a third party component for this part of the task and look up the solution, because it is a well defined problem thats been solved several times." There was a bit more discussion where I justified my answer, explained exactly what I would research, and I solved some other parts of the question. In the end I was offered and accepted the job, partly because of knowing how to find out what I didn't know.
Being able to use references is as important as being able to code from memory. Obviously, if you are a one language shop, and want people proficient in that language,the person should be able to write a complete hello world app in notepad. Interview problems should focus on small problems, and one should not worry about small syntax errors. This is why a whiteboard is the best IDE for interview questions.
Unless you demand all your coders use notepad and don't give them internet access, don't be as concerned by the syntax. If you do sit them down in front of a computer, worry about the finished product as well as the technique used to get there.
I'm a PHP programmer in my early 30's. I rely on PHP's excellent documentation, for several reasons:
Programming concepts don't change. If I know what my object models are and how I want to manipulate data, then there's dozens of ways to implement the details. The details are important, but a better grasp of the design and structure is more important
PHP has notoriously inconsistent functions. One string function might use ($needle,$haystack) as parameters, and another might use ($haystack,$needle). Trying to keep them straight isn't worth the hassle when you can just type php.net/function_name and get the reference.
I don't rely on intellisense, simply because I haven't found a decent IDE for PHP that does it well. Eclipse is ok, but it's not fantastic. Netbeans gives me 'PHPDoc not found' for all the built-in PHP functions whenever I install it. There's nothing that I've found so far that beats out the documentation.
The bottom line is that the ability to memorize functions isn't indicative of coding ability. Obviously there's a key set of basic functions that a good programmer will know just from extensive usage over time, but I wouldn't base a hiring decision on whether someone knows substr_replace vs. str_replace from memory.
Because I've read either the documentation, or articles, or a book on a subject, the things I learn on a topic are organized. The result is that, if I can't bring something up from memory, I can probably find it quickly through IntelliSense or the Object Browser.
Worse come to worst, I can pick up the book again; something these youngsters are not being taught to do.
John Saunders
Age 51
Pretty much Google + Old Projects + my memory (of course)
References will not solve your problems though, its only for the nuts and bolts, the higher level of problem solving is the actual "programming" part IMHO.
I tend to use Intellisense and Resharper much more than I used to before, but this has helped my overall productivity. If I can get the idea of how I want to solve something and then use tools to get the more boring parts like class names and function signatures, why shouldn't I use the tools I have? I feel relieved that Jon Skeet has a similar approach it seems.
I rely on my bookmarks and books... and my ability to use them effectively. I have multiple books above my desk, including a copy of the ISO C90 standard. Moreover, I use Xmarks to have access to my bookmarks wherever I go. Sometimes, I make a pdf out of a particular page and upload it to my web-site if it is important enough.
Sometimes the information provided by the resources I use makes its way into my terrible memory... maybe.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
As the years go by we get more and more applications. Figuring out if one application is using a feature from another application can be hard. If we change something in application A, will something in application B break?
We have been using MediaWiki for documentation, but it's hard to keep the data up-to-date.
I think what we need is some kind of visual map of everything. And the possibility to create some sort of reference integrity? Any ideas?
I'm in the same boat and still trying to sell my peers on Enterprise Architect, a CASE tool. It's a round trip tool - code to diagrams to code is possible. It's a UML centric too - although it also supports other methods of notation that I'm unfamiliar with...
Here are some things to consider when selecting a tool for documenting designs (be they inter-system communication, or just designing the internals of a single app):
Usability of the tool. That is, how easy is it to not only create, but also maintain the data you're interested in.
Familiarity with the notation.
A. The notation, such as UML, must be one your staff understands. If you try using a UML tool with a few people understanding how to use it properly you will get a big ball of confusion as some people document things incorrectly, and someone who understands what the UML says to implement either spots the error, or goes ahead and implements the erroneously documented item. Conversely more sophisticated notations used by the adept will confound the uninitiated.
B. Documentation isn't/shouldn't be created only for the documenters exclusive use. So those who will be reading the documentation must understand what they're reading. So getting a tool with flexible output options is always a good choice.
Cost. There are far more advanced tools than Enterprise Architect. My reasoning for using this one tool is that due to lack of UML familiarity and high pressure schedules, leaves little room to educate myself or my peers beyond using basic structure diagrams. This tool easily facilitates such a use and is more stable than say StarUML. (I tried both, StarUML died on the reverse engineering of masses of code -- millions of lines) For small projects I found StarUML adequate for home use, up until I got vista installed. Being opensource, it's also free.
With all that said, you will always have to document what uses what, that means maintaining the documentation! That task is one few companies see the value in despite its obvious value to those who get to do it. . .
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
Folks,
What is the best way to go about researching and presenting for a technical whitepaper? I dont mean the format, overview, sections and such stuff.
I've never written one - and I wonder if a white paper needs to be very very generic (conceptual) or specific (for instance favouring a particular tool/methodology)
And if your answer favours the generic approach, I'd like to know how one can research for that. Is it better to focus on a smaller use-case scenario, start small, use a particular tool/method, gain good understanding and then research more and develop a wide-angle view on the subject?
Yes, try to read other technical white papers. But don't just read any white paper. Read the better ones. You can usually determined which is the "better" one by checking how many times the paper has been cited (One web site I go to for this is cite seer and google scholar). Some general guidelines would be:
Try to be straight to the point, don't beat around the bush.
Use your acronyms consistently.
Take the opportunity to state the weaknesses of previous methods, as it kinda shows you have put in effort to review/survey other's methods.
A technical paper needs to be very specific. State exactly how your method works, state exactly how you conduct the experiments (so that others can replicate your experiments), state exactly your findings (lots of graphs would be nice), and finally, conclude it in 40-60 words or so.
Emphasis on stuff that are new (Stuff that you are proposing) and less on stuff that are old (That would be your background). Make the distinction clear.
Generally, you don't include your source code in your paper. If you must, published in a web page together with links to your paper.
P/S: My advice is a bit biased towards academic paper. But I think it should apply in your case.
The purpose of a white paper is usually to advocate a particular point of view or propose a specific solution to a problem.
If, however, your white paper comes across as little more than marketing or a sales pitch, you won't have made a very good case. The conventional advice is that you must begin by articulating a need that your audience has (the 'pain point' in bizspeak) and address your solution to that need.
This sounds a bit unhelpful, but white papers come in all forms, from very specific to very general. Determine what the end goal is. Are you trying to sell something, or describe how a new technical widget works, or describe an experience? Also, determine your audience are they business, technical, home etc.
Take a look around at examples - most big companies (IBM etc) have hundreds on their website. Read a few and see what strikes you as the good and bad points.
My 0.02:
Read a couple, and try to make mindmaps trying to come up with an idea of how they look like.
After you did this analysis, go back and pick the sections your whitepaper is going to need. In particular, build ANOTHER mind map with your document structure.
Data is also an important way to convey information. So, think a while about Data Visualization tecniques before charting your data.
A whitepaper could be either general or very specific. It depends entirely on the subject, audience, and the intent.
For example, a paper on an R+D topic, or presented within academia, or designed to provide a conceptual sketch of some future work is going to be written in a more passive voice, almost Q+A format. A discussion. You'll probably present multiple ideas and might pro/con them without necessarily reaching a fixed conclusion.
A whitepaper on a particular technology, for a clients' benefit of clarification, or to illustrate or document some result will be very firm, fixed, and have definite conclusions. Numbers.
The only thing you can say generally is that the process works from the vague -> specific.
How to Write a White Paper – A White Paper on White Papers
The author of that piece has also written a book:
Writing White Papers: How to Capture Readers And Keep Them Engaged