You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
TV commercials are annoying, so deer is not a nickname anymore ))))
it's called a customer centric approach
I'm sick of TV commercials, so the deer is not a nickname any more ))))
"Don't read Soviet newspapers before lunch." )))) but played well. No telly, first time I've seen it.
ZS this forum itself automatically translates, or what? no, no replacement for the AI cranium ))
I remembered something. A quarter of a century ago I came across quite industrial products BPWin and ERWin, (Logic Works, Computer Associated) which also seemed to be a panacea. Apparently, they weren't able to replace programming languages, they simply took their place among other development tools (lookedhttps://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERwin_Data_Modelerhttps://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/602049 - still alive).
Now I don't remember the reason why, but from conversations with enthusiasts of their use, I got the idea that they don't solve the problems they seemed to be trying to solve. And I seriously needed to find it out, I was obliged by my job, as a head of IT department, leading permanent developments - not just for my own interests. Those tasks, for which they were suitable, we in the department called "basic" - they were easily and naturally stacked in the relational DBMS. It is not for nothing that Oracle Process Modeller is mentioned among similar programmes (second link).
Has TC decided to reinvent UML?
Case in point.
The main problem is that UML is not complete according to Turing.
The main problem is that UML is not complete according to Turing.
Yes, but his direction is right. Coding is a narrow channel for harnessing the brain's potential. The pattern described by the code is understood hundreds of times longer than the same pattern perceived by the eyes. Imagine the rotation of a volley which on each circle slows down and increases the angle of inclination slightly. Describe this process with formulas in code and film it on a camera. Measure the time it takes the programmer to realise that this is the same thing.
Suppose the names of variables and comments will quickly tell you the object's image and essence in the code, but how quickly will he find out that the spinner in the code and in the video rotates in different directions if you don't tell him about it?
Of course, it is easier to parse code knowing the schematic than not knowing the schematic.
Technically it would even be convenient to have some kind of code visualizer... especially if one doesn't cancel the other but supplements it.