Jump to content

ShaunR

Members
  • Content Count

    4,128
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    217

Everything posted by ShaunR

  1. One of the requirements for 3d feature extraction is extracting datapoints in the neighbourhood of the feature. RTree is a good solution for that. RTree would give you the datapoints around your "finger", "elbow" and "shoulder" and you could draw lines between the centroid of those (giving you the lengths). Given you have three centroids you can then calculate the angle between the shoulder/elbow and finger/elbow.
  2. I have done this for VIP, and Zip packages for an installer I've had on the back burner for a while.
  3. I already have that superpower I once used lots of letters so that if you read the for loops top to bottom the letters spelt out my name and a message. I also once heard that wether you use "a" or "i" depends on if you came from a mathematical or engineering background. What's really stange (for me) is in C and PHP; I use "i". But in Pascal, and Python ; I use "a". I know that to a certain extent it is muscle memory since if I use "i" in Pascal, I nearly always leave out the colon before the equal sign. Maybe it's a coping mechanism because I switch between languages so much.
  4. There is DSMaxMem and DSMemStats which aren't much use. Do you have any info on DSMemStatsSlow and DSMemStats2?
  5. Did this today (and any other day I write C). for (int i=0; i < len; i++){ The big question is .. should it have been "a" instead of "i"?
  6. I think you answered your own question there and used the two term method that I described. This is exactly why I said:
  7. I don't think it's that hard. You just have to use two words, one of which describes the domain. Learning complexity, system, complexity, code complexity, network complexity et. al. They all adequately describe what's being talked about. I only had an issue with "accidental" complexity. When using non-domain terminology (like "accidental", "inherent" etc) it needs more defintion in the statement, for example "the inherent complexity of the code". The inherent complexity of the system, etc. This is mainly a grammatical problem rather than semantic.
  8. Thanks.It worked great but I don't think I'm going to go through the other 13 versions and installing it.
  9. Hmm. No 64 bit versions for 2009-2015. Thanks for the info.
  10. I've got it in 2019 but not in all the other versions. Is there a separate test install for each version?
  11. Potato, Potato Like i keep saying (and you agreed earlier) the Priority Queue is ordered PRIORITIES, not necessarily the elements (we disagree on this bit). The underlying implementation is irrelevant the name-it could even be a linked list.
  12. Moderator comment: Discussion started here. Nice. However this is mine.
  13. I don't think it does Cyclomatic Complexity Correct if I'm wrong because I rarely use it.
  14. Perhaps in the AF case. However it's also fairly common for the underlying implementation to be a stack (LIFO). That is effectively what the DQMH implementation is. Like "accidental"? You understimate the power of a marketing department, my friend
  15. Huh? I never said anything about an elderly person. Are you in the right thread?
  16. Well. My supermarket obviously isn't as isn't classy as yours. Flashing a Platinum Amex and then moving to the front would probably get you a bop on the nose.
  17. This I can get behind! 2&3 also map onto Whitebox and Blackbox testing. There is a test for 1 that I have seen (can't remember off hand what it was called) but it was mainly for c/c++ and counted things like the number of if/else or entries in Case statements to arrive at a figure for "complexity"
  18. Yes. I'm saying the "concept" of priority queues doesn't.
  19. As far as I'm aware. There is no guarantee (or expectation) that priority queues enforce ordering, only that higher priority messages will be executed before lower priority messages. I'm not familiar with the internal workings of the AF but if what you say is true (that order, at the same level, is guaranteed) then more of what you term "complexity" happens when that isn't required. An emergency stop springs to mind where you may not want the previous buffered messages to be executed, just the E-Stop. With the AF (based on your description) the user has to categorise different messages to
  20. OK. But good or bad wasn't the question. I was after the definition of "Accidental Complexity" and what you've just said brings me back to what I said originally Here I am saying that the underlying complexity of the framework is a necessary evil that has been "accepted and considered" rather than "accidental". What you seem to be confirming from my interpretation of your suggestion is that any hidden complexity is "accidental" in the context of the meaning and therfore a Framework is accidental complexity. Anyway. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that it's just more of a
  21. Exactly, but according to your definition it would be "accidental complexity". This is why I said in an earlier post that people confuse architecture and frameworks. I personally use a SOA architecture but within each service I may use QMH or Actors or whatever framework best achieves the goal. Many people choose one framework and fit everything inside it, making it their architecture. And lets be frank (or brian). Most LV frameworks are written and intended to be just that. So LVOOP is "accidental complexity"? (Just teasing) I don't really think it is a thing by these de
  22. Nah. Don't buy it. This is a change in requirements and there is no added complexity of the space itself. This is still a change in requirements and this is definitely an excuse for claiming value-added when no intention to add exits! Just because a user infers a feature that was never offered; it doesn't mean that the code is more complex. It just means the User (or Product Owner) has identified a new requirement. We were talking about code complexity growth and the term "accidental complexity" implies some sort of hidden cost - unkown or impossible to know, at design time (from what
  23. What is "accidental complexity"? This sounds like an excuse given to management.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.