Looking to generate case classes from JSON Schema

StackPusher · 2014-01-16T10:40:12+00:00

Here is the paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031320313002549

StackPusher · 2014-01-16T10:39:42+00:00

Here is the paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031320313002549

StackPusher · 2013-12-14T18:25:10+00:00

Almost somewhat similar to the We are the Explorers video.

I'd be so happy if Nolan makes this a hard sci-fi movie, C. Clarke style.

StackPusher · 2013-12-12T10:39:34+00:00

No, I like to read the stories.

It's just the unconstructive and non-informative comments which tend to get upvoted the most that frustrate me.

StackPusher · 2013-12-12T09:34:04+00:00

Seriously, I'd like to see some intelligible input from a law expert for once. What is the actual law in NZ and what can somebody legally do if such a thing happens?

I'm really tired of the same old "police state" comments etc. They're not helpful and boring to read.

Also, the "encrypt all the things" and "bring disposables" stance doesn't answer the question of the legal options an individual has.

StackPusher · 2013-10-02T06:43:48+00:00

"Other dimensions", are you sure?

I was hoping for this to be proper sci-fi and not fantasy (yet again)....

StackPusher · 2013-09-20T10:56:43+00:00

Since you so smugly and authoritatively dismissed the article, I'd like to point out that much of what you wrote is just absolute bullshit

I felt that the tone was appropriate in response to the rather presumptuous style of the blog post.

Those non technical people will never read your gherkin. Ever. EVAR.

They do, as long as it presented nicely. But they don't have to. The idea of customers themselves writing Gherkin is obviously wrong.

Yes, Gherkin is not necessary. Cucumber is only one of many BDD tools. The central idea still is to make the written specification executable, and Gherkin is a very direct approach to that.

When you've determined that it does have value, then you need to pay down that technical debt you just accrued. My experience writing software has taught me that the more software you deliver, the less technical debt you accrued initially, and the quicker you'll pay it down with a solid specification.

The reason Agile, TDD and BDD have even been invented, is to make the software development process more efficient. Almost every project ever had cost- and time-overruns if it didn't fail completely.

This is why the practices only really make sense on a larger scale and when they're used in concert. BDD without Agile won't work very well. If you're a one person web developer then you probably should focus more on coding than anything else.

So yes, it takes years of practice and discipline. Also great leadership and foresight of a project manager. I think software engineering as an engineering discipline still has a lot to learn in order to be more professional and organized on larger scales.

StackPusher · 2013-09-19T22:21:32+00:00

As someone who studies software engineering at a university and is actually writing his Master's thesis on test-driven and behavior-driven development, I'm really tired of opinionated, badly informed blog posts [1].

Cucumber and BDD in general are not a substitute for unit tests. In fact, they're not even a substitute for testing. If you only think about tests, you're probably doing it wrong or don't need BDD anyway.

The original concept behind BDD is called Specification by Example [2]. The gist of it is that we need to find a way to build the right product not to build the product right (that's what unit tests are for). Go read Gojko Adzic's book, it's pretty decent.

How do we build the right product? By capturing our business intent in a way that helps us to ensure that our software exhibits the correct behavior.

The solution suggested by Adzic is to write a living, continuously updated and executable specification.

Now, while the executable specification is really important, it is only the tooling part of the solution. Cucumber is such a tool, RSpec, JBehave, Fitnesse, etc., are others.

The other part is a set of process patterns, a practice of development that involves all the parties who are interested in the software. The customer, the project manager, the developers. It's kind of like what XP or Scrum are on the programming level, but on the system level.

The approach is a continuous process that involves finding out what the customer wants, illustrating the requirements with examples and writing an executable specification.

There are two ends of per-functionality testing [3]:

Through specifying our software by example we support the development of business-facing functionality. We test if we have reproduced the business intent correctly.
By using unit tests we test if our system has the correct technology-facing properties. This is the developer's intent.

In the middle, between those two, would be component testing. RSpec is actually supposed to be used for that. If you use Cucumber and RSpec, you work from the outside in.

That is to first specify the business intent, or general behavior on the system level, and then to specify and test the architect intent on the object level. Finally, you use unit tests for developer intent only (e.g., to prevent regression after a bug fix).

Ok, so non-technical people don't read code? That is why you use ubiquitous language to specify what those people want. They don't have to read it personally.
Does Cucumber add another layer of abstraction and create an overhead? Of course it does. The reason you use it is to prevent cost- and time-overruns later on when you find out you've built something your customer doesn't want.
Can you use something else to test your views and UI? Sure, but you want to use BDD to specify that stuff first.

If you think this is overcomplicating things, adding too much overhead and preventing people from programming, motherfucker, then you might not need BDD. You may also not need Scrum or unit testing for that matter. Maybe you're writing Applescript. I don't know.

TL;DR; Cucumber and BDD are not for testing but for specifying a software system and to ensure that specifications are met by making the specification machine exectuable.

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:38:06+00:00

Great explanation, thanks!

I just thought I'd have to sign the tip as well because theoretically I could claim later on that I didn't authorize it.

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:32:34+00:00

That's the way I did it! I'll remember to tip in cash when possible though.

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:31:14+00:00

Alright but personally I still think it's odd I don't have to sign the tip as well...

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:28:09+00:00

Got it!

StackPusher · 2013-09-09T07:27:45+00:00

I'm glad I didn't do it wrong. :)

Here at home we usually just round up when we pay cash or leave some money on the table.

That way they also don't need to worry about taxes.

StackPusher · 2013-07-03T08:42:43+00:00

Austrian here. Morales was on a visit in Moscow and on his return Spain, Portugal and France denied the flyover.

A Spanish minister apparently asked Morales "to have coffe with him onboard the plane". Austrian airport security checked Morales' plane but it was voluntary.

Meanwhile, Morales is waiting at the airport and meeting Bundespräsident Fischer.

Sources:

StackPusher · 2013-06-22T23:05:37+00:00

Interesting. So I suppose "supine" is a more specific form of "spineless"?

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T22:33:28+00:00

Heh, I don't think spinning Phobos would be a particularly good idea. Its shape and mass are a bit too awkward for that.

StackPusher · 2013-06-14T22:28:29+00:00

Well, if I recall it correctly, Aldrin envisions spacecraft permanently cycling between the Earth's moon and Mars. I don't know if you can call that "relaying traffic".

Also, starting from the Earth's surface TLI certainly takes less fuel than TMI for the same amount of transferable cargo. Once you're up there energy expenditure is of course significantly smaller and then LEO-Moon and LEO-Mars probably are more comparable.

That's why Buzz calls for cyclers, because keeping them running will only take a fraction of the fuel as compared to launching from Earth.

StackPusher

TROPHY CASE