Wow, very timely, yesterday I needed to brush up on C and was wondering how I would go about it. Thanks. Very minor note: the link to "Learn C the Hard Way" on the faq page links back to the faq page.
Well, like in this article [1] on the front page yesterday, there's a sentiment that individual rights and private property per capitalism should give way to something more "collaborative." Only "collaborative" is not new, it stinks of failed historical experiments and the exact kind of repression described in this article in Romania.
What's most troublesome is statements like this, typical of the guardian:
"A new economic paradigm – the collaborative commons – has leaped onto the world stage as a powerful challenger to the capitalist market."
Whereas capitalism as a philosophy is about individual rights and private property, this "new collaborative economy" stinks of failed historical experiments.
1. "There are just two grades of commodities in the world: the best -- and the others."
2. "...whether he can talk and write effectively... If you write and speak neatly and accurately, it is because your thinking is orderly; if your expression is forceful, the thought back of it must be forceful. But if you blunder for words, punctuate incorrectly, spell incorrectly, and express yourself clumsily, I'm sure to believe you mind is cluttered and ill-disciplined."
This sounds incredibly useful in a hospital/emergency room. A definite step up from the use case of walking around town blinking to take pictures. Anyway to see more screenshots?
I'm with you because I had the same experience with a judge while lawyerless. I showed him a manufacturer tech spec on my car to make the point that based on its 0-60 acceleration, it was physically impossible that I was going 67 mph by the time I reached the intersection where I was clocked from where I started accelerating. His response upon seeing the specs was, "What are you, trying to sell me on a car?! This officer (witness) has been with the department 15 years. Guilty."
I think there's a bigger design problem then, e.g. those functions should really be classes. I'm just talking about doing a few 'extract method' refactorings.
"If you find your testers splitting up functions to support
the testing process, you’re destroying your system
architecture and code comprehension along with it. Test at
a coarser level of granularity."
What? Splitting up large functions into smaller, well-named units destroys code comprehension?
Would you care to share what that skill set is, for the sake of improvement of a mid-level engineer like myself?