| Ruby weekly news
|
|
26 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
Weekly news for
17th - 23rd October 2005.
|
| Engineuity: hydrogen production system for cars
|
|
25 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
Maybe this one will make
it into mainstream or s.b. buys up the company and the technology
disappears into a drawer forever.
|
| Ideas for startups
|
|
25 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
Paul Graham has written a nice article on how to get good
ideas for startups.
|
| Ruby versus Smalltalk versus Objective-C versus C++ versus Java versus Python versus CLOS versus Perl5
|
|
22 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
I just now updated my old language comparison table
as I got feedback from Mark Aufflick. A big thanks to all the people that
contributed to this table in the last two years.
|
| Futurometer slides |
|
21 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
At the Euruko we presented Futurometer.
To cut a long story short, we think that most financial online tools are a joke. We want to offer leading edge statistical tools with unknown ease of use. Then we combine these hard facts with soft facts :-). Stay tuned ..
Sven C. Koehler is still working on our conference videos, but a copy of our slides is available. Futurometer is still in the early development stages, but it's big fun.
I especially like the "bird flu" plot showing how much media attention it gets.
|
| Making the Date
|
|
20 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
Ron Jeffries posted a new article.
It seems like every development project begins with the date, and
we’re held responsible for "making the date". Making the
date is not a development responsibility. Here’s why.
|
| Visions for the future
|
|
19 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
The slides of matz’s talk are
online now. Great as always!
|
| Outsourcing research and development work
|
|
18 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
I came across this great post by Luiz Esmiralha in the pragprog list.
>> On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 11:48:34PM -0200, Luiz Esmiralha wrote:
>> >
>> > Maybe another question can help clarify the issue.
>> >
>> > Why pay 100 grand a year for a programmer just to make a guy in the US
>> > or Europe happy if I can get the same job paying 20 grand a year for a
>> > guy in India?
>>
>> Well those aren't anything near the figures. I know someone who is
>> the IT director for a UK company that uses outsourcing. The financial
>> savings are around 15%. If he sets up a UK shop in one of the more
>> deprived areas of the UK he will be able to get to somewhere near that
>> figure - lower salaries, govt grants etc. As a result he is seriously
>> looking at doing just that.
>>
In a recent survey, average savings from offshoring are around a bit
less than 10%. 5% of the companies polled acheved savings around 50%
(cases where they replaced 400 bucks/hour resources for 50 bucks/hour
resources).
The realistic target saving when offshoring operations is estimated
around 30% as companies become more mature in the way they conduct
offshoring.
20 grand a year for a programmer in Brazil is a very good figure. I
don't know the current average salary of a programmer in the US or UK.
The 100K figure was based on supposition rather than fact.
>> > Your analogy implies that Indian software lacks quality. Quality seems
>> > to be measured (or guessed?) in CMM levels by every company in the US
>> > and the rest of the world is following this trend. Given that fact, I
>> > would like to remind you of the many companies in India appraised at a
>> > CMM 5 maturity level.
>> > I don't believe in CMM, but the guys in India didn't make it up, they
>> > just happily jumped on the SEI bandwagon.
>>
>> I don't believe in CMM either and I dont believe it necessarily produces
>> a high quality product. It has been my experience (of three different
>> Indian outsourcing companies) that product quality is variable, and
>> a lot of the developers are what I would class as juniors even though they
>> are not sold as such. Undoubtedly some of this can be tracked to
>> the fact that development of apps that distant from the users is not the
>> best way of doing things. Also there is a disinclination for the Indian
>> guys to question the spec if they think it is inconsistent or lacking in
>> detail and to raise questions with whoever is leading the project.
>>
>> Some (maybe most) of these issues are often also present for the big US/UK
>> consulting firms.
>>
I worked with the 'Big Five" in some projects and they present a
uniform pattern in their staffing that I call "War Movie Team".
These teams are usually composed by a seasoned sargent (consultant)
which marvels the spectator (customer) with his ability and 10 rookies
(juniors or trainees). The sargent is usually assigned to another post
in the middle of the movie and must leave the rookies to their own
luck.
In unrealistic war movies, the rookies will use their talent combined
with the experience they acquired with Sarge to overcome the enemy and
come home as heroes. In real wars and real projects, they are
slaughtered by snipe fire, hidden mines and disease and return to
South Dakota in bodybags.
|
| Wee Concepts and Internals
|
|
17 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
Michael Neumann’s talk
from the Euruko 05.
Wee is a framework for building highly dynamic web applications. It is
inspred by Seaside.
|
| Call for slides, photos, etc.
|
|
17 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
Please email all slides, photos, videos or links to
armin@nospam,approximity.com and Armin will put it all up on one place.
www.euruko.com
|
| mp3s of US Rubyconf
|
|
17 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
Thanks to James for putting it up on his server. yhrhosting.com:7000
|
| Locomotive
|
|
09 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
Locomotive is a flexible
one-click solution to Ruby on Rails development for Mac OS X 10.3+. In one
self-contained application, it gives you a fully functional Rails
development platform including: (but not limited to)
- The framework: Ruby on Rails
- The favored webserver: lighttpd with FastCGI
- An embedded database: SQLite
Locomotive includes the Ruby MySQL and PostgreSQL bindings. If you have
MySQL/PostgreSQL installed, or want to use them, Locomotive is ready.
Locomotive will be nice to your existing rails installation as Locomotive
is entirely self-contained.
|
| Tutorial: Rails + RubyScript2Exe = Executable
|
|
06 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
I get a lot of emails about packing and distributing Rails applications
with Tar2RubyScript and RubyScript2Exe. It obviously wasn’t easy to
come up with the steps that have to be taken to transform a Rails
application into a standalone application. Since I never built a Rails
application myself, I wasn’t even sure if it was possible at all.
That’s why I decided to write a little tutorial: www.erikveen.dds.nl/distributingrubyapplications/rails.html
Propositions for enhancements are welcome…
gegroet, Erik V. - www.erikveen.dds.nl/
|
| Ajax autocompletion demo
|
|
06 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
Nice Ajax autocompleter. script.aculo.us/demos/ajax/autocompleter
|
| About idiots
|
|
06 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
Ken Boucher posted this to the xp-list :-)
>FWIW, I didn't find it insulting. I was offering my (somewhat
>> educated) viewpoint.
I knew that education would get you in trouble someday.
If you were a dropout like some of us, we wouldn't be having all
these communication problems.
That's why I like to work with people who know they're idiots. It's
just so much easier on all of us.
If they're an idiot and they know it, I can work with them.
If they know they're an idiot and they turn out to be smart, so much
the better.
If they're an idiot and don't know it, I know I don't want to work
with them.
And if they're not an idiot and they know they're not an idiot, I
don't want to work with them. Why make someone like that suffer?
After all you'd have to be an idiot to want to work with me.
|
| The forth programmer ...walks across the bridge
|
|
05 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
Dr.Altaica posted this to the comp.lang.forth :-)
The C Programmer
God consults with the C programmer on every major issue. (As anyone
who study's processor design knows all to well.)
The C programmer can walk on water.
The VB Programmer
The VB programmer does lunch with God every day.
He is an olympic class swimmer.
The Turbo Pascal Programmer
The Turbo Pascal programmer occasionally has a word with God.
He can swim pretty well.
The Fortran Programmer
The Fortran programmer sometimes catches a glimpse of God.
He manages to keep himself afloat in shallow water.
The QBASIC Programmer
The QBASIC programmer knows who God is.
He has trouble avoiding drowning in his own bathtub.
The LOGO Progammer
About the only thing a Logo programmer knows about GOD is that the
word is short enough for him to sound out, but he has trouble spelling
it.
He needs someone else to cerry him across the water for him.
The Assembly Language Programmer
The assembly language programmer is God.
He parts the water when he wishes to cross it.
The Forth Programmer
The Forth programmer don't view ever river he comes across as a
challenge to his religious faith and just walks across the bridge.
|
| GOOGLE & SUN OFFICE
|
|
04 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
.. here we go. How long will it take till this hurts MS really badly? google-blog.dirson.com/post.new/0285/
|
| SD People & Projects: Mo' Developers, Mo' Problems?
|
|
04 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
Thanks to Stefan for the forwarded eamil.
Von: "SD Magazine"<sd@newsletters.sdmediagroup.com>
Betreff: SD People & Projects: Mo' Developers, Mo' Problems?
Datum: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:09:26 -0400 (EDT)
SD PEOPLE & PROJECTS
October 2005: Bigger Teams Not Always Better
By Amit Asaravala
>>>> MO' DEVELOPERS, MO' PROBLEMS?
Thinking about assigning more developers to a project
to accelerate your schedule? Be careful. Putting a large
team on the job could cause you more trouble than it's
worth, according to a new study by software estimation
and analytics vendor QSM.
The study, based on data that QSM collected from 564
information systems projects completed since 2002,
revealed that large teams don't complete projects much
faster than small teams, though they cost much more. In
particular, teams with 34 people on average completed a
100,000-line project in 5.6 months at a cost of $2.1
million, while teams of four people on average took
about two weeks longer but cost just $294,000. Thus,
shaving two weeks off the schedule cost some companies
as much as $1.84 million.
Why such disproportionate production rates? Blame it
on the bugs. The larger teams produced more than five
times as many bugs as the smaller teams, which required
the teams to reexamine their code more often, according
to QSM. In the end, this ate into a large portion of
the time saved by having more developers turn out more
code per day.
But before you decide to cut your team back to just
four people, consider this: The size of the small team
in the study was just an average, and QSM readily admits
that it's saving the question of "optimum" team size for
a future study.
Rather, the real lessons here are that you'd better be
sure that accelerating your schedule by adding more
developers is worth the extra cost, and that you should
have realistic expectations about how many days you'll
actually save by doing so.
--Amit Asaravala
|
| Linus on Specifications
|
|
04 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
William posted this to the XP-List.
Here’s a very interesting set of comments from Linus Torvalds and
Theodore Tso on the problem with writing specs:
kerneltrap.org/node/5725
Here’s a great quote from Linus:
The classic example of this is the OSI network model protocols.
Classic spec-design, which had absolutely _zero_ relevance for the
real world.We still talk about the seven layers model, because it's
a convenient model for _discussion_, but that has absolutely zero to
do with any real-life software engineering. In other words, it's a
way to _talk_ about things, not to implement them.
And that's important. Specs are a basis for _talking_about_ things.
But they are _not_ a basis for implementing software.
And a good one from Ted Tso:
In those cases, if you implement something which is religiously
adherent to the specification, and it doesn't interoperate with the
real world (i.e., everybody else, or some large part of the
industry) --- do you claim that you are right because you are
following the specification, and everyone else in the world is
wrong? Or do you adapt to reality?
And another one from Linus:
So don't talk about specs. Talk about working code that is
_readable_ and _works_. There's an absolutely mindbogglingly huge
difference between the two.
All heresy to the BDUF school of thought, of course. But relatively
uncontroversial in the XP world. Interesting to see the parallel evolution.
|
| A good OS X blog
|
|
02 Oct 05 |
|
[print
link
all
] |
|
Thanks to Sven C. Koehler for the link. www.macosxhints.com/index.php?topic=pick
A few months ago I did buy a mac mini. My excuse to my girl-friend was that
it would make less noise than my hyper big server. The mac mini looks
really nice and OS-X is cute, too. I got to admit, I do love the GUI and
the poor fact that most things like WLAN, etc. seem to work out of the box.
But the definite downside is that coming from Debian/Gentoo/Suse I got some
expectations towards the development tools. Now I waste hours installing
fink, etc. .. fighting with different philosophies, but I still enjoy the
new journey.
|
|
|