<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for underdevelopment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.underdevelopment.eu/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu</link>
	<description>web development blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:13:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why I think test driven development suck by William C</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2009/08/29/why-i-think-test-driven-development-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-48944</link>
		<dc:creator>William C</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:13:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=150#comment-48944</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-48898&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;@Gary S&lt;/a&gt; 
It&#039;s good to know there&#039;s at least one sane person on the internet.  I agree that this whole test driven development religion is completely overblown and is a failed attempt to fix the reality that there are people out there that are just bad at programming. 

Instead of actually knowing what you are doing, you write a bunch of tests and then mindlessly assume all your code is correct when your tests pass, not knowing full well that you might&#039;ve coded your tests wrong in the first place. What will you do then? Suggest that tests be written for the tests? 

So instead of wasting time writing tests to claim that I have &quot;80% code coverage&quot;, how about training software engineers to actually think, code, test, and clean up after themselves. Now all we have instead is a bunch of banshees telling me how to do my job and waste my time writing tests so they can layoff the QA department.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-48898" rel="nofollow">@Gary S</a><br />
It&#8217;s good to know there&#8217;s at least one sane person on the internet.  I agree that this whole test driven development religion is completely overblown and is a failed attempt to fix the reality that there are people out there that are just bad at programming. </p>
<p>Instead of actually knowing what you are doing, you write a bunch of tests and then mindlessly assume all your code is correct when your tests pass, not knowing full well that you might&#8217;ve coded your tests wrong in the first place. What will you do then? Suggest that tests be written for the tests? </p>
<p>So instead of wasting time writing tests to claim that I have &#8220;80% code coverage&#8221;, how about training software engineers to actually think, code, test, and clean up after themselves. Now all we have instead is a bunch of banshees telling me how to do my job and waste my time writing tests so they can layoff the QA department.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why I think test driven development suck by Hamish MccReight</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2009/08/29/why-i-think-test-driven-development-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-48932</link>
		<dc:creator>Hamish MccReight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:26:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=150#comment-48932</guid>
		<description>I used to work for DEC in the eighties developing and testing world-wide apps and now develop Web apps with .NET. I develop and test according to basic techniques learned there., namely, I have a spec that has been reviewed and that lists what a component should do or look like. I code it so it satisfies ALL these requirements and then tick them off as I test it. If I don&#039;t get a spec, I write one that lists the requirements up front, make sure my boss reads it and deal with any issues and then code it so that it satisfies all requirements etc.... Test Driven Development ...no thanks. Functional spec driven development plus testing ....yes. Also, of course, having a decent architecture/framwork that allows easy maintenance and extension also helps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I used to work for DEC in the eighties developing and testing world-wide apps and now develop Web apps with .NET. I develop and test according to basic techniques learned there., namely, I have a spec that has been reviewed and that lists what a component should do or look like. I code it so it satisfies ALL these requirements and then tick them off as I test it. If I don&#8217;t get a spec, I write one that lists the requirements up front, make sure my boss reads it and deal with any issues and then code it so that it satisfies all requirements etc&#8230;. Test Driven Development &#8230;no thanks. Functional spec driven development plus testing &#8230;.yes. Also, of course, having a decent architecture/framwork that allows easy maintenance and extension also helps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on easy and simple transparency effect using GIF by PS</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2009/10/03/easy_and_simple_transparency_effect_using_gif/comment-page-1/#comment-48918</link>
		<dc:creator>PS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:07:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=190#comment-48918</guid>
		<description>You might want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithering#Digital_photography_and_image_processing

One downside of this technique is that such an image will produce a displeasing flickering effect when dragged over itself. You can try it out yourself in firefox: Load the page, then drag the image somewhere. 
So when using this, you should at least disable drag &amp; drop for the elements involved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might want to read this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithering#Digital_photography_and_image_processing" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dithering#Digital_photography_and_image_processing</a></p>
<p>One downside of this technique is that such an image will produce a displeasing flickering effect when dragged over itself. You can try it out yourself in firefox: Load the page, then drag the image somewhere.<br />
So when using this, you should at least disable drag &amp; drop for the elements involved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why I think test driven development suck by Gary S</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2009/08/29/why-i-think-test-driven-development-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-48898</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:40:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=150#comment-48898</guid>
		<description>Your article is bang on the money in terms of client and business value, but off the mark otherwise.

Not only is TDD a waste of the client&#039;s time and money, it is a waste of the developer&#039;s time as well.

The software testing religion is silly. This idea that you should spend countless hours writing tests so you can boldly refactor all your code safe in the knowledge that you will never introduce a single bug due to your awesome tests violates every theory of computer science there is.

For one, refactoring the code often means refactoring the tests due to changes in the API or architecture. Changing the test when you change your code is equivalent to having no test at all. Read that again if you don&#039;t understand.

Secondly, due to the halting problem, it is impossible to write tests that will find every single possible bug. If you think otherwise, then you should submit a scientific paper with your findings because you will receive the Nobel Prize and have the distinction of proving the likes of Turing and Djikstra wrong. More likely, unit tests exist solely to give you a false sense of security about your code.

Thirdly, when the project nears completion and you fix a lot of small bugs, you will often find you spend as much time maintaining the unit tests as you do the code!  You just don&#039;t have time to do that anymore. More likely, the deadline will force you to throw out all the unit tests because they aren&#039;t adding any value and are slowing you down too much. In which case, you&#039;d have been better off not wasting the time writing them in the first place!

And yes, unit tests can have bugs in them. Why do people assume that developers can write test code that is completely 100% bug free whilst assuming that those same develepers are incompetent enough to include the sort of bugs that unit tests will find in the main code?

It just doesn&#039;t make sense.

In very specific circumstances, such as writing complex scientific or mathematical code, tests make sense ONLY for the purposes of regression testing. It is a complete waste of time in every other circumstance.

Good software development is efficient. Clients expect value for money, and if they knew their developers were squandering thousands of hours of their time writing things which add no value whatsoever they would probably sue.

There&#039;s a good reason the market favours developer groups who don&#039;t waste their time writing tests. They do the job more efficiently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your article is bang on the money in terms of client and business value, but off the mark otherwise.</p>
<p>Not only is TDD a waste of the client&#8217;s time and money, it is a waste of the developer&#8217;s time as well.</p>
<p>The software testing religion is silly. This idea that you should spend countless hours writing tests so you can boldly refactor all your code safe in the knowledge that you will never introduce a single bug due to your awesome tests violates every theory of computer science there is.</p>
<p>For one, refactoring the code often means refactoring the tests due to changes in the API or architecture. Changing the test when you change your code is equivalent to having no test at all. Read that again if you don&#8217;t understand.</p>
<p>Secondly, due to the halting problem, it is impossible to write tests that will find every single possible bug. If you think otherwise, then you should submit a scientific paper with your findings because you will receive the Nobel Prize and have the distinction of proving the likes of Turing and Djikstra wrong. More likely, unit tests exist solely to give you a false sense of security about your code.</p>
<p>Thirdly, when the project nears completion and you fix a lot of small bugs, you will often find you spend as much time maintaining the unit tests as you do the code!  You just don&#8217;t have time to do that anymore. More likely, the deadline will force you to throw out all the unit tests because they aren&#8217;t adding any value and are slowing you down too much. In which case, you&#8217;d have been better off not wasting the time writing them in the first place!</p>
<p>And yes, unit tests can have bugs in them. Why do people assume that developers can write test code that is completely 100% bug free whilst assuming that those same develepers are incompetent enough to include the sort of bugs that unit tests will find in the main code?</p>
<p>It just doesn&#8217;t make sense.</p>
<p>In very specific circumstances, such as writing complex scientific or mathematical code, tests make sense ONLY for the purposes of regression testing. It is a complete waste of time in every other circumstance.</p>
<p>Good software development is efficient. Clients expect value for money, and if they knew their developers were squandering thousands of hours of their time writing things which add no value whatsoever they would probably sue.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a good reason the market favours developer groups who don&#8217;t waste their time writing tests. They do the job more efficiently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Why I think test driven development suck by René</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2009/08/29/why-i-think-test-driven-development-suck/comment-page-1/#comment-48896</link>
		<dc:creator>René</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:25:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=150#comment-48896</guid>
		<description>Well, if you want to sell unfinished software then TDD as well as agile development suck because they try to deliver finished software items. If you want to deliver a software full of bugs and your customer is willing to pay extra to fix those bugs (or you like to gamble and hope the customer won&#039;t notice?) then why using things like TDD??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, if you want to sell unfinished software then TDD as well as agile development suck because they try to deliver finished software items. If you want to deliver a software full of bugs and your customer is willing to pay extra to fix those bugs (or you like to gamble and hope the customer won&#8217;t notice?) then why using things like TDD??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on running ubuntu on a vaio BZ series laptop by admin</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2010/01/18/running-ubuntu-on-a-vaio-bz-series-laptop/comment-page-1/#comment-48890</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:27:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=233#comment-48890</guid>
		<description>Ah, I don&#039;t exactly use the lid for sleep. I put it to sleep manually.  Not sure why really.  So I might actually have the same problem. 

Also I wasn&#039;t even aware it even had a internal mic. :)  
I bought a headset for use with skype years ago, one that folds in on itself so it can be easily stuffed into a side pocket of my carrying bag.
Also the front head/mic sockets are mighty handy as a side note.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, I don&#8217;t exactly use the lid for sleep. I put it to sleep manually.  Not sure why really.  So I might actually have the same problem. </p>
<p>Also I wasn&#8217;t even aware it even had a internal mic. <img src='http://www.underdevelopment.eu/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
I bought a headset for use with skype years ago, one that folds in on itself so it can be easily stuffed into a side pocket of my carrying bag.<br />
Also the front head/mic sockets are mighty handy as a side note.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on running ubuntu on a vaio BZ series laptop by Eric Donkersloot</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2010/01/18/running-ubuntu-on-a-vaio-bz-series-laptop/comment-page-1/#comment-48887</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric Donkersloot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:33:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=233#comment-48887</guid>
		<description>Strangely enough, I own a BZ12XN with almost the same specs and standby does not work the first time I close the lid, and here&#039;s why:

ericd@vaiopro:~$ cat /proc/acpi/button/lid/LID0/state 
state:      closed

To get the internal mic working (i.e. for Skype), I had to add a line to /etc/modprobe.d/alsa-base.conf:

options snd-hda-intel model=toshiba-s06

Cheers,

Eric</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Strangely enough, I own a BZ12XN with almost the same specs and standby does not work the first time I close the lid, and here&#8217;s why:</p>
<p>ericd@vaiopro:~$ cat /proc/acpi/button/lid/LID0/state<br />
state:      closed</p>
<p>To get the internal mic working (i.e. for Skype), I had to add a line to /etc/modprobe.d/alsa-base.conf:</p>
<p>options snd-hda-intel model=toshiba-s06</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Eric</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on running ubuntu on a vaio BZ series laptop by admin</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2010/01/18/running-ubuntu-on-a-vaio-bz-series-laptop/comment-page-1/#comment-48881</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:41:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=233#comment-48881</guid>
		<description>I of course can&#039;t confirm that it happens with all these laptops, but seeing as a lot of people comment on it seems to indicate it is pretty much always the case, or at least mostly.

But yes, the laptop has a annoying high pitch hum. Interestingly enough, i don&#039;t think it is a fan problem. I think it might be a condensator.

The sound only appears when the laptop is plugged into power (which is almost always because it won&#039;t last very long without power, a few hours tops)
Also, if you sit directly in front of the laptop you probably won&#039;t hear the sound. At least that is my experience.

I hope this helps.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I of course can&#8217;t confirm that it happens with all these laptops, but seeing as a lot of people comment on it seems to indicate it is pretty much always the case, or at least mostly.</p>
<p>But yes, the laptop has a annoying high pitch hum. Interestingly enough, i don&#8217;t think it is a fan problem. I think it might be a condensator.</p>
<p>The sound only appears when the laptop is plugged into power (which is almost always because it won&#8217;t last very long without power, a few hours tops)<br />
Also, if you sit directly in front of the laptop you probably won&#8217;t hear the sound. At least that is my experience.</p>
<p>I hope this helps.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on running ubuntu on a vaio BZ series laptop by Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2010/01/18/running-ubuntu-on-a-vaio-bz-series-laptop/comment-page-1/#comment-48877</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jul 2010 05:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=233#comment-48877</guid>
		<description>Hi,

could you please say something about its noice?  How is the fan?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>could you please say something about its noice?  How is the fan?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on traveling elephpant by Andy Thompson</title>
		<link>http://www.underdevelopment.eu/2010/06/30/travelingelephpant/comment-page-1/#comment-48872</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Thompson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2010 09:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.underdevelopment.eu/?p=239#comment-48872</guid>
		<description>Ouch, that must be very frustrating.

I had another look at your algorithm, and came up with changes to my own. The speed I calculated from my own ratio is very subjective though.

Check it out in my comments on my blog article

http://andytson.com/blog/2010/05/travelling-elephpant-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-31</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ouch, that must be very frustrating.</p>
<p>I had another look at your algorithm, and came up with changes to my own. The speed I calculated from my own ratio is very subjective though.</p>
<p>Check it out in my comments on my blog article</p>
<p><a href="http://andytson.com/blog/2010/05/travelling-elephpant-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-31" rel="nofollow">http://andytson.com/blog/2010/05/travelling-elephpant-solutions/comment-page-1/#comment-31</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
