Thursday, June 29, 2006
Here are the goodies.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
See how I, at least somewhat, did this here.
Monday, June 26, 2006
I thought about just rewriting the HTML but having to create 12 separate files, one for each month, was not what I wanted to do. Why not, as I am learning to use Ruby, use it to parse the existing HTML into a new file, a txt file in this case and then run script to rename the new into the old files, with links that use the traditional target attribute to open a new browser.
Click here to see what I did to parse the existing HTML files into TXT files.
Click here to see the copy of the TXT into HTML files.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
What got me thinking about this was an article that I ran across by Dave Hunt and Andy Thomas entitled, Software Archaeology. In it the authors state:
Archaeologists generally don’t make wisecracks about how stupid a particular culture was (even if they did throw dead bodies into the only good drinking well). In our industry, we generally don’t show such restraint.
As stated above, it has been my experience that in the software development field, we are too quick to criticize. They then go on to write:
But it’s important when reading code to realize that apparently bone-headed decisions that appear to be straight out of a "Dilbert" cartoon seemed perfectly reasonable to the developers at the time. Understanding "what they were thinking" is critical to understanding how and why they wrote the code the way they did. If you discover they misunderstood something, you’ll likely find that mistake in more than one place. But rather than simply "flipping the bozo bit" on the original authors, try to evaluate their strengths as well as weaknesses. You might find lost treasure—buried domain expertise that’s been forgotten.
Therefore instead of just asking, "What were they thinking?” we need to consider “What and how are we thinking?" to get the most out of the code that we sometimes unearth and/or must excavate.