Download PDF Destiny Shaper: Discovering And Releasing Your Potential

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Destiny Shaper: Discovering And Releasing Your Potential file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Destiny Shaper: Discovering And Releasing Your Potential book. Happy reading Destiny Shaper: Discovering And Releasing Your Potential Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Destiny Shaper: Discovering And Releasing Your Potential at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Destiny Shaper: Discovering And Releasing Your Potential Pocket Guide.
leondumoulin.nl: Destiny Shaper: Transformational Life Coaching (Destiny Shaper: Discovering and Releasing Your Potential) (Volume 1) (): Tony.
Table of contents

• Speaker Directory
• See a Problem?
• Speaker Directory
• 20 Bible verses about Destiny
• UPDATE: Grand Prix Player Points Cap Announced

They may be end users, they may be other programmers, or they may be system administrators.

What is least surprising can differ among these groups. Pay attention to tradition. The Unix world has rather well-developed conventions about things like the format of configuration and run-control files, command-line switches, and the like. These traditions exist for a good reason: to tame the learning curve. Learn and use them. We'll cover many of these traditions in Chapter 5 and Chapter The flip side of the Rule of Least Surprise is to avoid making things superficially similar but really a little bit different. This is extremely treacherous because the seeming familiarity raises false expectations.

It's often better to make things distinctly different than to make them almost the same. One of Unix's oldest and most persistent design rules is that when a program has nothing interesting or surprising to say, it should shut up. Well-behaved Unix programs do their jobs unobtrusively, with a minimum of fuss and bother.

Silence is golden. On the slow printing terminals of , each line of unnecessary output was a serious drain on the user's time. That constraint is gone, but excellent reasons for terseness remain. I think that the terseness of Unix programs is a central feature of the style. When your program's output becomes another's input, it should be easy to pick out the needed bits.

And for people it is a human-factors necessity — important information should not be mixed in with verbosity about internal program behavior. If all displayed information is important, important information is easy to find. Well-designed programs treat the user's attention and concentration as a precious and limited resource, only to be claimed when necessary. We'll discuss the Rule of Silence and the reasons for it in more detail at the end of Chapter Software should be transparent in the way that it fails, as well as in normal operation.

It's best when software can cope with unexpected conditions by adapting to them, but the worst kinds of bugs are those in which the repair doesn't succeed and the problem quietly causes corruption that doesn't show up until much later. Therefore, write your software to cope with incorrect inputs and its own execution errors as gracefully as possible. But when it cannot, make it fail in a way that makes diagnosis of the problem as easy as possible. Postel was speaking of network service programs, but the underlying idea is more general.

Well-designed programs cooperate with other programs by making as much sense as they can from ill-formed inputs; they either fail noisily or pass strictly clean and correct data to the next program in the chain. It is the specifications that should be generous, not their interpretation. McIlroy adjures us to design for generosity rather than compensating for inadequate standards with permissive implementations. Otherwise, as he rightly points out, it's all too easy to end up in tag soup. In the early minicomputer days of Unix, this was still a fairly radical idea machines were a great deal slower and more expensive then.

Nowadays, with every development shop and most users apart from the few modeling nuclear explosions or doing 3D movie animation awash in cheap machine cycles, it may seem too obvious to need saying. Somehow, though, practice doesn't seem to have quite caught up with reality. If we took this maxim really seriously throughout software development, most applications would be written in higher-level languages like Perl, Tcl, Python, Java, Lisp and even shell — languages that ease the programmer's burden by doing their own memory management see [Ravenbrook].

Later in this book we'll discuss this strategy and its tradeoffs in detail. One other obvious way to conserve programmer time is to teach machines how to do more of the low-level work of programming. This leads to Human beings are notoriously bad at sweating the details. Accordingly, any kind of hand-hacking of programs is a rich source of delays and errors. The simpler and more abstracted your program specification can be, the more likely it is that the human designer will have gotten it right.

Generated code at every level is almost always cheaper and more reliable than hand-hacked. We all know this is true it's why we have compilers and interpreters, after all but we often don't think about the implications. High-level-language code that's repetitive and mind-numbing for humans to write is just as productive a target for a code generator as machine code.

See a Problem?

It pays to use code generators when they can raise the level of abstraction — that is, when the specification language for the generator is simpler than the generated code, and the code doesn't have to be hand-hacked afterwards. In the Unix tradition, code generators are heavily used to automate error-prone detail work. We cover these techniques in Chapter 9. Prototyping first may help keep you from investing far too much time for marginal gains.

Rushing to optimize before the bottlenecks are known may be the only error to have ruined more designs than feature creep. From tortured code to incomprehensible data layouts, the results of obsessing about speed or memory or disk usage at the expense of transparency and simplicity are everywhere. They spawn innumerable bugs and cost millions of man-hours — often, just to get marginal gains in the use of some resource much less expensive than debugging time.

Disturbingly often, premature local optimization actually hinders global optimization and hence reduces overall performance. A prematurely optimized portion of a design frequently interferes with changes that would have much higher payoffs across the whole design, so you end up with both inferior performance and excessively complex code.

In the Unix world there is a long-established and very explicit tradition exemplified by Rob Pike's comments above and Ken Thompson's maxim about brute force that says: Prototype, then polish. Get it working before you optimize it. Or: Make it work first, then make it work fast.

• Ohi me lassa - Score;
• The Memoirs of Count Grammont — Volume 02?
• The Journey of Peggy ONeill.
• Corrections: The Essentials?
• In Pursuit of Purpose - FREE Preview | New King James Version | Meaning Of Life?
• User:Dante the Ghost/Other - Destinypedia, the Destiny encyclopedia.

The thrust of all these quotes is the same: get your design right with an un-optimized, slow, memory-intensive implementation before you try to tune. Then, tune systematically, looking for the places where you can buy big performance wins with the smallest possible increases in local complexity.

Prototyping is important for system design as well as optimization — it is much easier to judge whether a prototype does what you want than it is to read a long specification. He wouldn't issue long specifications; he'd lash together some combination of shell scripts and awk code that did roughly what was needed, tell the customers to send him some clerks for a few days, and then have the customers come in and look at their clerks using the prototype and tell him whether or not they liked it.

His estimates tended to be accurate, but he lost out in the culture to managers who believed that requirements writers should be in control of everything. Using prototyping to learn which features you don't have to implement helps optimization for performance; you don't have to optimize what you don't write. The most powerful optimization tool in existence may be the delete key. We'll go into a bit more depth about related ideas in Chapter Even the best software tools tend to be limited by the imaginations of their designers.

Nobody is smart enough to optimize for everything, nor to anticipate all the uses to which their software might be put. Designing rigid, closed software that won't talk to the rest of the world is an unhealthy form of arrogance. It embraces multiple languages, open extensible systems, and customization hooks everywhere. Never assume you have the final answer.

UPDATE: Grand Prix Player Points Cap Announced

Therefore, leave room for your data formats and code to grow; otherwise, you will often find that you are locked into unwise early choices because you cannot change them while maintaining backward compatibility. When you design protocols or file formats, make them sufficiently self-describing to be extensible.

Always, always either include a version number, or compose the format from self-contained, self-describing clauses in such a way that new clauses can be readily added and old ones dropped without confusing format-reading code. Unix experience tells us that the marginal extra overhead of making data layouts self-describing is paid back a thousandfold by the ability to evolve them forward without breaking things.

1. The Alpha Centauri Message (The Alpha Centauri Wars Book 1);
2. Did you know?!
3. Charisma Magazine.
4. Spike Lee: Finding the Story and Forcing the Issue!
5. “The Loving Him”.
6. The Rose of Sharon (Mariana de la Mar Book 0)?

When you design code, organize it so future developers will be able to plug new functions into the architecture without having to scrap and rebuild the architecture. This rule is not a license to add features you don't yet need; it's advice to write your code so that adding features later when you do need them is easy.

You owe this grace to people who will use and maintain your code after you. You'll be there in the future too, maintaining code you may have half forgotten under the press of more recent projects.