Win a copy of Cross-Platform Desktop Applications: Using Node, Electron, and NW.js this week in the JavaScript forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Whether a post belongs in Beginning Java or not: whether requirements should be clearly defined.  RSS feed

 
Lucian Whiteman
Ranch Hand
Posts: 62
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Admins, do you really think this is a beginner question ? Even one of your admins has embarrassed himself by giving wrong answers in this thread, this clearly looks like an advanced or very advanced java question.
 
Tim Cooke
Marshal
Posts: 3835
221
Clojure IntelliJ IDE Java
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
As a problem in Java, I think this suits the Beginning Java forum well enough. The complexity in this discussion is the ever fluid requirements. It's extremely difficult to make recommendations on how to improve the readability of some code when the functional requirements are not clearly defined. Usually the process is "make it work" -> "make it right", and we're stuck on making it work so have no hope of getting on to making it right.

I'm unsure what you're hoping to achieve with your last post.

We're all volunteers here and enjoy helping people out with their programming problems, that's why we're here. The single most important rule of CodeRanch is "Be Nice", and the reason that's there is because it's enjoyable to help people when they're being nice, so we do. But it's no fun trying to help people when they're not being nice, so we don't. Simple.

So, do you have a question?
 
Lucian Whiteman
Ranch Hand
Posts: 62
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Tim Cooke wrote:As a problem in Java, I think this suits the Beginning Java forum well enough. The complexity in this discussion is the ever fluid requirements. It's extremely difficult to make recommendations on how to improve the readability of some code when the functional requirements are not clearly defined. Usually the process is "make it work" -> "make it right", and we're stuck on making it work so have no hope of getting on to making it right.

I'm unsure what you're hoping to achieve with your last post.

We're all volunteers here and enjoy helping people out with their programming problems, that's why we're here. The single most important rule of CodeRanch is "Be Nice", and the reason that's there is because it's enjoyable to help people when they're being nice, so we do. But it's no fun trying to help people when they're not being nice, so we don't. Simple.

So, do you have a question?


My 3 questions for you are:

1) Why are you not being nice, and disrespecting me, by repeating the mantra "functional requirements are not clearly defined" ?

2) Why are you insulting everyone who ever programmed in Java, by claiming that Java can only solve problems who have "clearly defined functional requirements " ?

3) Why do you think you are qualified to give advice to others, when it is clear that you can not overpass you own mental barrier of "functional requirements are not clearly defined" ?
 
Campbell Ritchie
Sheriff
Posts: 55298
156
  • Likes 3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
We have tried our hardest to help you and received repeated complaints. I think such behaviour merits an apology.

Tim is quite right that this was a beginning Java topic.
You have made it difficult for anybody to help by repeatedly changing the requirements and not telling us that you had changed them. Did you produce the new requirements or were you given them?
There is nothing insulting in what Tim said about strictly defined requirements.
 
Dave Tolls
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2813
30
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Without some fairly clear requirements how do you know what it is you are supposed to be achieving?

I've been on the odd project where a change has been poorly defined (squishy like a marshmallow) and you invariably end up with code that looks the same.
Part of the analysis job is to try and clarify the requirements. Now, that doesn't mean they have to be carved in stone as, once you've produced something it may turn out to need tweaking...but it should be tweaking, not wholesale teardown and rewrite.
 
Tim Cooke
Marshal
Posts: 3835
221
Clojure IntelliJ IDE Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
For reference, the original thread that spawned this discussion is this one.
 
Stephan van Hulst
Saloon Keeper
Posts: 7695
140
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Lucian, I don't understand why you feel insulted, and I definitely don't think "everyone who ever programmed in Java" would be insulted.

By definition, to solve a problem, you need to know what the problem is. You can't solve a problem without accurately describing the problem. If you keep changing the description of the problem, you will arrive at a different solution every time. This is a fact, and should not be taken as a personal attack.

Personally, I think Tim is very qualified, because I've seen him provide valuable and accurate advice for many problems here on the Ranch. I also think he's nice, because I haven't seen him use personal attacks or do it in any other unprofessional manner. Do not confuse a factual and to-the-point response with an insult.

Please remember that text is a poor medium to convey mood or emotion, so when in doubt, assume the person meant all the best, because otherwise they wouldn't be providing advice in the first place.
 
Piet Souris
Rancher
Posts: 1941
66
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In defence of OP: I think we have been quite harsh on OP, and I can
understand his feelings.

Whether or not the return type is a mystery, the core question was clear
from the beginning and hasn't changed:

given a series of integers, see if there is a triple that can form a triangle.

And indeed, all the way it has been pretty unclear what the return value should be.

This has been repeatedly pointed out to OP, in stronger and stronger words,
like if OP was given the task to write a new operating system for CERN.

I count no less than six different names of repliers, including me with a
nonsense reply, so OP might be forgiven of having the feeling of being
crucified, albeit it with the best intentions of the world.

In the end, and I refer to OP's reply of June, 23, 10:58:49 CET,
we could have ended it all by congratulating OP for coming up with a very
nice algorithm that solves the question, and with the advise of asking
his boss about a suitable return type. But no, we go on hammering
on changing specifications and how impossible it is et cetera.

Then, in this spin off, OP comes with some remarks that are testimony
of frustration, and indeed, here we go again: 5 men strong, naling OP
and giving the thumbs up to each other. No sense of any self reflection,
How dares OP, criticizing us!

No, these two topics certainly don't make me feel proud.

Greetz,
Piet

 
Campbell Ritchie
Sheriff
Posts: 55298
156
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Kudos to PS for disagreeing with us.
 
Tim Cooke
Marshal
Posts: 3835
221
Clojure IntelliJ IDE Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I like to feel that everybody who engages with me at CodeRanch gets treated fairly, so to hear that somebody feels otherwise... it just makes me sad. However, I'm open to feedback so this is all fine with me.

Lucian Whiteman wrote:Why are you not being nice, and disrespecting me, by repeating the mantra "functional requirements are not clearly defined" ?
I try my best to be nice at all times, at a minimum civil, and it is absolutely never my intention to disrespect anyone who visits CodeRanch.

Lucian Whiteman wrote:Why are you insulting everyone who ever programmed in Java, by claiming that Java can only solve problems who have "clearly defined functional requirements " ?
Programming is a very precise science. If you do not know how your program is expected to behave, then you cannot know that your program is correct. I'm fairly certain that I'm not insulting anyone by stating this.

Lucian Whiteman wrote:Why do you think you are qualified to give advice to others, when it is clear that you can not overpass you own mental barrier of "functional requirements are not clearly defined" ?
I'm no more or less qualified than any other member of CodeRanch. When you come to a forum and ask for advice, then it's advice you will get. What you do with that advice is up to you.

I have reviewed and responded to the original thread and I hope you can get some value from it Lucian.

Lastly, I echo Campbell's thanks to Piet for his balancing account of events. It's good to hear from multiple points of view.
 
Liutauras Vilda
Marshal
Posts: 4475
300
BSD
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Lucian,

Please take my apologies if you feel I were too strict in my replies.
Would be nice to see you around
 
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!