Archives
-
Maintainable software: why you can't live without proper solid documentation
This post is a reply to Jeremy D. Miller's post 'A Train of Thought, June 17, 2007'. It's part of an on going discussion about maintainability of software and what's necessary for having maintainable software. I'm not going to link to every post in the discussion, you can find most of them from Jeremy's post.
Before I continue, I'd like to say that I'm not participating in this discussion to disqualify TDD/Agile as a set of useful methodologies because I do think they have some solid points everyone can benefit from. I'm also not participating in this discussion because I'm a waterfall-follower, because I'm not a waterfall follower. Waterfall is a methodology which could be very beneficial but it has to suit the project. For example, you really want to use waterfall in software for some medical equipment as you don't want to run the risk to miss a spot because you didn't anticipate a particular use-case would be possible. I don't use waterfall myself as I'm not in the medical equipment business and I'm also not a consultant payed by the hour. But more on that later on in the article. The post is build up as replies to things Jeremy said in his post, so the blockquotes are quoted from his post.
The summary comes down to this: Documentation describes the what and the why, code describes the how. You need both documentation and code to have the complete overview, not just the code. -
Don't use foreach over MatchCollection, use for. UPDATED
UPDATE. Apparently they both call GetMatch(). So my advice isn't correct. Thanks 'Reflector' for the comment. What surprises me though is that first my routine (checked with Ants profiler) was slow because of the foreach, and now it's not.
-
SqlServer 2008: Does it or doesn't it have the Entity Framework?
I just read an interesting post on the Oakleafblog of Roger Jennings. There, Roger enlists his feedback he would have given to the ADO.NET team. It's an interesting list of items, most of them I can agree on. Though the better gems are in the comment posted by Mike Pizzo, ADO.NET's architect.
-
SqlServer 2005 paging: there IS a generic wrapper query possible
(the Name field in the queries below is without [ and ] brackets, because CS currently goes bezerk because of these. Don't know why, but apparently a glitch somewhere.)
-
Posting something with [Name] in the text fails
I'm trying to post a new article about SqlServer paging but the query SQL I was posting contained the reference to a Name field, WITH [ and ]. This gives an error in CS 3.0 here. Just for reference :)
-
My last post on THE soap
Ok, this will be my last post on the soap of TD.NET and MS (has anyone already called Hollywood?
). In the community there's some controversy starting to pop up here and there and I just want to make clear what my position is and will be. This to avoid getting pulled into any camp in this soap.
-
Thou Shall Not Work Around Technical Limitations! (whatever they are)
Dan Fernandez responded to my recent blogpost with a follow-up on the Jamie vs. Microsoft soap.
He used an analogy to try to make his point:To paraphrase an analogy from that post, this would be comparable to a 3rd party company working around the technical limitations in the LLBGEN demo to unlock features in LLBGen Pro for free.
-
Look! Microsoft is working hard on building a community!