From: o//annabee on 13 Mar 2006 04:27
P? Mon, 13 Mar 2006 05:33:18 +0100, skrev <Chewy509(a)austarnet.com.au>:
> \\o//annabee wrote:
>> Chewy509 wrote:
>> >> Here is a link to what I work on : < http://szmyggenpv.com/ >
>> > Hmm... not valid HTML. And oh my eyes, please stop the bleeding!
>> > (Doesn't pass the w3c HTML validator on any HTML level)...
>> :))) Good! The validator seems to do its work, indeed. I am much
>> surpriced with it. Good tool indeed.
> So I take it, you'll be updating your website shortly to be nothing but
> valid HTML?
Of cource not. I ment that this validator is great at limiting people
conserned with standards from acessing the site. I think it works to
perfection. They dont want to visit a site that isnt within standards, so
using this validator, they can protect themselfes from this immense
annoyance, and I on the other hand can avoid having them visiting. So I
think this wonderful validator does double duty.
Its nothing short of Brilliant if you'd ask me.
> PS. As a token of good will, I'm more than happy to update your website
> for you, so that's HTML v4.01 Strict w/CSS and also give it a more
> modern look at the same time... Once at that point, it shouldn't be too
> hard for you to maintain yourself.
Thank you very much for this offer. I will have to refuse.
Because I am _allergic_ to standards. Sorry.
> PPS. That is a serious offer! (I can't stand websites that look like
> they're done by a 2 year old using frontpage).
:))) Yes, I guess. But at least it aint trying to cover up for it.
> Darran (aka Chewy509) brought to you by Google Groups!
From: o//annabee on 13 Mar 2006 04:30
P? Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:49:51 +0100, skrev sevagK <kahlinor(a)yahoo.com>:
> Chewy509(a)austarnet.com.au wrote:
>> PS. As a token of good will, I'm more than happy to update your website
>> for you, so that's HTML v4.01 Strict w/CSS and also give it a more
>> modern look at the same time... Once at that point, it shouldn't be too
>> hard for you to maintain yourself.
>> PPS. That is a serious offer! (I can't stand websites that look like
>> they're done by a 2 year old using frontpage).
>> Darran (aka Chewy509) brought to you by Google Groups!
> Seems okay to me, no distractions and straight to the point.
> Wannabee: Your current project looks interesting. -- crashed on my
> system after closing the About box. Now I can't run it at all anymore.
> Freezes everytime. You might want to look into it. (WinXP).
Thanks SevagK. :)
From: Frank Kotler on 13 Mar 2006 06:11
> The only defense I can think of is to say that it is part
> of the ASM culture to "purposely" employ a "circa '95 theme" in proud
> defiance of modern eye-candy. :)
From: Dragontamer on 13 Mar 2006 08:59
> På Mon, 13 Mar 2006 05:33:18 +0100, skrev <Chewy509(a)austarnet.com.au>:
> > PS. As a token of good will, I'm more than happy to update your website
> > for you, so that's HTML v4.01 Strict w/CSS and also give it a more
> > modern look at the same time... Once at that point, it shouldn't be too
> > hard for you to maintain yourself.
> Thank you very much for this offer. I will have to refuse.
> Because I am _allergic_ to standards. Sorry.
Such as the GPL standard I assume?
IMO, that is why I don't like the GPL. If you aren't part of the "GPL
aka, have the GPL license, you lose out on benifits.
There is something about this "join us" that I don't like; it is like
standard of sorts.
*sorry for the sudden change of topic in this off topic topic :)*
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on 13 Mar 2006 15:33
> Hi Randy,
> I'm doing something similar, just a basic script that compiles all the
> examples and compares to the previous version, as well as additional
> files that check for error/fail conditions and out-of-band syntax (eg
> symbols are the too large to fit into the internal buffers (more than
> 256 characters), nesting too many files (32 files deep), or overly
> complex preprocessor nesting (256 levels deep of #ifdef/#else/#endif),
> etc). Obvisously, like yourself each fail-condition is a separate file.
Sounds reasonable. :-)
> But the one thing that has helped enormously, at least in my case is
> rewritting the compiler in it's own language... (As this has tested
> roughly 99% of the code path, and dealing with a cross-platform product
> it gets a good workout). I'm assuming your finding that experience
> similar with rewritting HLA v2 in HLA?
I've definitely found *some* bugs by doing this. But keep in mind that
HLA v1.x existed a long time before I started doing serious work on HLA
v2.0. By then, lots of different people were using it and a lot of the
easy bugs had already been encountered.
As for exercising the code path, HLA is such a rich language that I
don't even come close with HLA v2.0's source code. For example, I don't
use many object-oriented programming features in HLA v2.0. Recently,
I've done some work on a new terminal emulation class for the HLA
standard library and the HLA Standard Template Library, both of which
use object-oriented programming facilities, and I've discovered some
problems there (Sevag has also been doing some OOP stuff, and has
discovered a few little problems). In any case, that demonstrates that
you won't get code coverage by simply rewriting HLA in itself.
> The thing was, I was wondering if there was a better or alternate way
> of testing...
Well, code coverage is the *minimum* that the IEEE suggests for
"professional quality code". There are lots of other testing mechanisms
you can use above and beyond code coverage. A good set of functional
tests are needed to complement the things that code coverage (white box
test data) misses.
But the main thing is to have a formal test suite with a good set of
regression tests you can run whenever you do a milestone build.
> At least for my purpose, there doesn't appear to be. Thanks to everyone
> for their feedback! :)
> PS. Good to see Rene is back in fine form! ;)