Greetings! 

This week during class, among other things, we learned about semantic version numbers. As the name implies, the process of determining what kind of version goes to what kind of version number is quite complicated, and requires some level of thought, which I admittedly hadn’t done before now. The MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format for changes does seem rather useful and straightforward, but actually figuring out how to classify changing how a print command prints to the console seems like a lot of work. I always had this notion in mind that developers kind of just picked versions numbers at random, or at least sequentially, I didn’t know there was an actual structure behind what appears to be a simple string of numbers.

I feel like with writing these posts I have a tendency to view other blog posts that completely contradict, or speak about the shortcomings of what we learn in class. I don’t mean to be a cynic, I just want to be aware of what can go wrong when using such a structured method of formatting. That being said, I viewed “Semantic Versioning is a terrible mistake”, from the Reinvigorated Programmer, which is a personal blog of a career programmer and hobby archeologist. While I don’t fully agree with the overly cynical title of the article, I do believe it makes some very valid points. Within this article, the writer speaks about the problems with having numbered releases for software, as it makes it so programmers can make frequent breaking changes to software, which are denoted by a version number. Instead of having a real “Major Release”, it’s really just an excuse to release a small breaking change and release it as it’s own version. I can see obvious problems with this, such as the tedium of upkeep and maintenance. While I haven’t worked with many of these constantly changing APIs in my school programming career, I can certainly relate to the struggle of dealing with a constant influx of new versions. To anyone that has tried to play the video game Minecraft, and attempted to mod said game, you know how difficult it can be to make sure everything is working with the same base version of the software. 

Overall this article was pretty good! I enjoyed the semi-comedic tone of the author, and it feels a little less dry than some of the other more technical blogs I’ve viewed in my time. In terms of semantic versions, I am glad I’ve taken the time to look into it further, as I think it’s helped me clarify what the differences are between the different numbers, and what it means to release a major version following this numeric scheme. So the next time I use a piece of software that has some history to it, and is on version 21.3.56, I can smile in satisfaction at the fact that I know what that means, but also grimace at the fact that, inevitably, software will break. Eugh.

Article Link:https://reprog.wordpress.com/2023/12/27/semantic-versioning-is-a-terrible-mistake/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 Greetings! 

This week during class, among other things, we learned about semantic version numbers. As the name implies, the process of determining what kind of version goes to what kind of version number is quite complicated, and requires some level of thought, which I admittedly hadn’t done before now. The MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format for changes does seem rather useful and straightforward, but actually figuring out how to classify changing how a print command prints to the console seems like a lot of work. I always had this notion in mind that developers kind of just picked versions numbers at random, or at least sequentially, I didn’t know there was an actual structure behind what appears to be a simple string of numbers.

I feel like with writing these posts I have a tendency to view other blog posts that completely contradict, or speak about the shortcomings of what we learn in class. I don’t mean to be a cynic, I just want to be aware of what can go wrong when using such a structured method of formatting. That being said, I viewed “Semantic Versioning is a terrible mistake”, from the Reinvigorated Programmer, which is a personal blog of a career programmer and hobby archeologist. While I don’t fully agree with the overly cynical title of the article, I do believe it makes some very valid points. Within this article, the writer speaks about the problems with having numbered releases for software, as it makes it so programmers can make frequent breaking changes to software, which are denoted by a version number. Instead of having a real “Major Release”, it’s really just an excuse to release a small breaking change and release it as it’s own version. I can see obvious problems with this, such as the tedium of upkeep and maintenance. While I haven’t worked with many of these constantly changing APIs in my school programming career, I can certainly relate to the struggle of dealing with a constant influx of new versions. To anyone that has tried to play the video game Minecraft, and attempted to mod said game, you know how difficult it can be to make sure everything is working with the same base version of the software. 

Overall this article was pretty good! I enjoyed the semi-comedic tone of the author, and it feels a little less dry than some of the other more technical blogs I’ve viewed in my time. In terms of semantic versions, I am glad I’ve taken the time to look into it further, as I think it’s helped me clarify what the differences are between the different numbers, and what it means to release a major version following this numeric scheme. So the next time I use a piece of software that has some history to it, and is on version 21.3.56, I can smile in satisfaction at the fact that I know what that means, but also grimace at the fact that, inevitably, software will break. Eugh.

Article Link:https://reprog.wordpress.com/2023/12/27/semantic-versioning-is-a-terrible-mistake/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 Greetings! 

This week during class, among other things, we learned about semantic version numbers. As the name implies, the process of determining what kind of version goes to what kind of version number is quite complicated, and requires some level of thought, which I admittedly hadn’t done before now. The MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format for changes does seem rather useful and straightforward, but actually figuring out how to classify changing how a print command prints to the console seems like a lot of work. I always had this notion in mind that developers kind of just picked versions numbers at random, or at least sequentially, I didn’t know there was an actual structure behind what appears to be a simple string of numbers.

I feel like with writing these posts I have a tendency to view other blog posts that completely contradict, or speak about the shortcomings of what we learn in class. I don’t mean to be a cynic, I just want to be aware of what can go wrong when using such a structured method of formatting. That being said, I viewed “Semantic Versioning is a terrible mistake”, from the Reinvigorated Programmer, which is a personal blog of a career programmer and hobby archeologist. While I don’t fully agree with the overly cynical title of the article, I do believe it makes some very valid points. Within this article, the writer speaks about the problems with having numbered releases for software, as it makes it so programmers can make frequent breaking changes to software, which are denoted by a version number. Instead of having a real “Major Release”, it’s really just an excuse to release a small breaking change and release it as it’s own version. I can see obvious problems with this, such as the tedium of upkeep and maintenance. While I haven’t worked with many of these constantly changing APIs in my school programming career, I can certainly relate to the struggle of dealing with a constant influx of new versions. To anyone that has tried to play the video game Minecraft, and attempted to mod said game, you know how difficult it can be to make sure everything is working with the same base version of the software. 

Overall this article was pretty good! I enjoyed the semi-comedic tone of the author, and it feels a little less dry than some of the other more technical blogs I’ve viewed in my time. In terms of semantic versions, I am glad I’ve taken the time to look into it further, as I think it’s helped me clarify what the differences are between the different numbers, and what it means to release a major version following this numeric scheme. So the next time I use a piece of software that has some history to it, and is on version 21.3.56, I can smile in satisfaction at the fact that I know what that means, but also grimace at the fact that, inevitably, software will break. Eugh.

Article Link:https://reprog.wordpress.com/2023/12/27/semantic-versioning-is-a-terrible-mistake/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 Greetings! 

This week during class, among other things, we learned about semantic version numbers. As the name implies, the process of determining what kind of version goes to what kind of version number is quite complicated, and requires some level of thought, which I admittedly hadn’t done before now. The MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH format for changes does seem rather useful and straightforward, but actually figuring out how to classify changing how a print command prints to the console seems like a lot of work. I always had this notion in mind that developers kind of just picked versions numbers at random, or at least sequentially, I didn’t know there was an actual structure behind what appears to be a simple string of numbers.

I feel like with writing these posts I have a tendency to view other blog posts that completely contradict, or speak about the shortcomings of what we learn in class. I don’t mean to be a cynic, I just want to be aware of what can go wrong when using such a structured method of formatting. That being said, I viewed “Semantic Versioning is a terrible mistake”, from the Reinvigorated Programmer, which is a personal blog of a career programmer and hobby archeologist. While I don’t fully agree with the overly cynical title of the article, I do believe it makes some very valid points. Within this article, the writer speaks about the problems with having numbered releases for software, as it makes it so programmers can make frequent breaking changes to software, which are denoted by a version number. Instead of having a real “Major Release”, it’s really just an excuse to release a small breaking change and release it as it’s own version. I can see obvious problems with this, such as the tedium of upkeep and maintenance. While I haven’t worked with many of these constantly changing APIs in my school programming career, I can certainly relate to the struggle of dealing with a constant influx of new versions. To anyone that has tried to play the video game Minecraft, and attempted to mod said game, you know how difficult it can be to make sure everything is working with the same base version of the software. 

Overall this article was pretty good! I enjoyed the semi-comedic tone of the author, and it feels a little less dry than some of the other more technical blogs I’ve viewed in my time. In terms of semantic versions, I am glad I’ve taken the time to look into it further, as I think it’s helped me clarify what the differences are between the different numbers, and what it means to release a major version following this numeric scheme. So the next time I use a piece of software that has some history to it, and is on version 21.3.56, I can smile in satisfaction at the fact that I know what that means, but also grimace at the fact that, inevitably, software will break. Eugh.

Article Link:https://reprog.wordpress.com/2023/12/27/semantic-versioning-is-a-terrible-mistake/

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week we discussed design smells (which I find endlessly amusing from a name standpoint), as well as the concept of design patterns. As a whole, design patterns are something that I had never thought of before now, though it makes perfect sense in retrospect. Programmers often run into the same kinds of problems or requirements for a project, so it makes perfect sense that we would have a set of designs that help to alleviate some of the problems surrounding them. I’ve always been one to writer code from scratch, or look up how to set something up in a basic sense, but these more abstract concepts aren’t something I had put much thought or research into. The article I’ve chosen to read for this week is “The Problem with Patterns” from A List Apart ,which is a
blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science
industry comment on various issues and topics. I figured that it would be a good idea to look at some of the problems with patterns, so maybe I could learn to avoid them, while using them for the first time.

   The article talks about the problems with using design patterns, mostly from the perspective of the prospective user. Design patterns are good from the perspective of getting software completed and modular for the future, but most commonly used patterns focus more on just that, getting code done, rather than focusing on making it as usable as possible. This is compounded by the fact that since many designs are so readily available, it encourages programmers to use them without maybe understanding how they fully work, or the ramifications of using them in the first place. A design might look like it works for a specific purpose that suits your needs, but it most likely cannot be used for everything, so it requires more thought than just implementing them and being done with it. 

   We’ve mainly focused on one design pattern in class, the strategy pattern, but we’ve also been very good about mentioning some of the potential downsides of using it (Additional objects, more required knowledge, etc). After reading this article, I hope we remain this informed about any other patterns we might talk about. I can see that it would be incredibly easy to not think about the needs of your users and therefor make it much worse to use by not paying attention to the patterns I use, so overall, I think I’m just going to be more mindful of my programming overall. Patterns are great, but there’s always a place for time to be spent on the designs of my code.

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/problem-with-patterns/ 

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week we discussed design smells (which I find endlessly amusing from a name standpoint), as well as the concept of design patterns. As a whole, design patterns are something that I had never thought of before now, though it makes perfect sense in retrospect. Programmers often run into the same kinds of problems or requirements for a project, so it makes perfect sense that we would have a set of designs that help to alleviate some of the problems surrounding them. I’ve always been one to writer code from scratch, or look up how to set something up in a basic sense, but these more abstract concepts aren’t something I had put much thought or research into. The article I’ve chosen to read for this week is “The Problem with Patterns” from A List Apart ,which is a
blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science
industry comment on various issues and topics. I figured that it would be a good idea to look at some of the problems with patterns, so maybe I could learn to avoid them, while using them for the first time.

   The article talks about the problems with using design patterns, mostly from the perspective of the prospective user. Design patterns are good from the perspective of getting software completed and modular for the future, but most commonly used patterns focus more on just that, getting code done, rather than focusing on making it as usable as possible. This is compounded by the fact that since many designs are so readily available, it encourages programmers to use them without maybe understanding how they fully work, or the ramifications of using them in the first place. A design might look like it works for a specific purpose that suits your needs, but it most likely cannot be used for everything, so it requires more thought than just implementing them and being done with it. 

   We’ve mainly focused on one design pattern in class, the strategy pattern, but we’ve also been very good about mentioning some of the potential downsides of using it (Additional objects, more required knowledge, etc). After reading this article, I hope we remain this informed about any other patterns we might talk about. I can see that it would be incredibly easy to not think about the needs of your users and therefor make it much worse to use by not paying attention to the patterns I use, so overall, I think I’m just going to be more mindful of my programming overall. Patterns are great, but there’s always a place for time to be spent on the designs of my code.

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/problem-with-patterns/ 

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week we discussed design smells (which I find endlessly amusing from a name standpoint), as well as the concept of design patterns. As a whole, design patterns are something that I had never thought of before now, though it makes perfect sense in retrospect. Programmers often run into the same kinds of problems or requirements for a project, so it makes perfect sense that we would have a set of designs that help to alleviate some of the problems surrounding them. I’ve always been one to writer code from scratch, or look up how to set something up in a basic sense, but these more abstract concepts aren’t something I had put much thought or research into. The article I’ve chosen to read for this week is “The Problem with Patterns” from A List Apart ,which is a
blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science
industry comment on various issues and topics. I figured that it would be a good idea to look at some of the problems with patterns, so maybe I could learn to avoid them, while using them for the first time.

   The article talks about the problems with using design patterns, mostly from the perspective of the prospective user. Design patterns are good from the perspective of getting software completed and modular for the future, but most commonly used patterns focus more on just that, getting code done, rather than focusing on making it as usable as possible. This is compounded by the fact that since many designs are so readily available, it encourages programmers to use them without maybe understanding how they fully work, or the ramifications of using them in the first place. A design might look like it works for a specific purpose that suits your needs, but it most likely cannot be used for everything, so it requires more thought than just implementing them and being done with it. 

   We’ve mainly focused on one design pattern in class, the strategy pattern, but we’ve also been very good about mentioning some of the potential downsides of using it (Additional objects, more required knowledge, etc). After reading this article, I hope we remain this informed about any other patterns we might talk about. I can see that it would be incredibly easy to not think about the needs of your users and therefor make it much worse to use by not paying attention to the patterns I use, so overall, I think I’m just going to be more mindful of my programming overall. Patterns are great, but there’s always a place for time to be spent on the designs of my code.

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/problem-with-patterns/ 

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week we discussed design smells (which I find endlessly amusing from a name standpoint), as well as the concept of design patterns. As a whole, design patterns are something that I had never thought of before now, though it makes perfect sense in retrospect. Programmers often run into the same kinds of problems or requirements for a project, so it makes perfect sense that we would have a set of designs that help to alleviate some of the problems surrounding them. I’ve always been one to writer code from scratch, or look up how to set something up in a basic sense, but these more abstract concepts aren’t something I had put much thought or research into. The article I’ve chosen to read for this week is “The Problem with Patterns” from A List Apart ,which is a
blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science
industry comment on various issues and topics. I figured that it would be a good idea to look at some of the problems with patterns, so maybe I could learn to avoid them, while using them for the first time.

   The article talks about the problems with using design patterns, mostly from the perspective of the prospective user. Design patterns are good from the perspective of getting software completed and modular for the future, but most commonly used patterns focus more on just that, getting code done, rather than focusing on making it as usable as possible. This is compounded by the fact that since many designs are so readily available, it encourages programmers to use them without maybe understanding how they fully work, or the ramifications of using them in the first place. A design might look like it works for a specific purpose that suits your needs, but it most likely cannot be used for everything, so it requires more thought than just implementing them and being done with it. 

   We’ve mainly focused on one design pattern in class, the strategy pattern, but we’ve also been very good about mentioning some of the potential downsides of using it (Additional objects, more required knowledge, etc). After reading this article, I hope we remain this informed about any other patterns we might talk about. I can see that it would be incredibly easy to not think about the needs of your users and therefor make it much worse to use by not paying attention to the patterns I use, so overall, I think I’m just going to be more mindful of my programming overall. Patterns are great, but there’s always a place for time to be spent on the designs of my code.

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/problem-with-patterns/ 

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week we discussed design smells (which I find endlessly amusing from a name standpoint), as well as the concept of design patterns. As a whole, design patterns are something that I had never thought of before now, though it makes perfect sense in retrospect. Programmers often run into the same kinds of problems or requirements for a project, so it makes perfect sense that we would have a set of designs that help to alleviate some of the problems surrounding them. I’ve always been one to writer code from scratch, or look up how to set something up in a basic sense, but these more abstract concepts aren’t something I had put much thought or research into. The article I’ve chosen to read for this week is “The Problem with Patterns” from A List Apart ,which is a
blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science
industry comment on various issues and topics. I figured that it would be a good idea to look at some of the problems with patterns, so maybe I could learn to avoid them, while using them for the first time.

   The article talks about the problems with using design patterns, mostly from the perspective of the prospective user. Design patterns are good from the perspective of getting software completed and modular for the future, but most commonly used patterns focus more on just that, getting code done, rather than focusing on making it as usable as possible. This is compounded by the fact that since many designs are so readily available, it encourages programmers to use them without maybe understanding how they fully work, or the ramifications of using them in the first place. A design might look like it works for a specific purpose that suits your needs, but it most likely cannot be used for everything, so it requires more thought than just implementing them and being done with it. 

   We’ve mainly focused on one design pattern in class, the strategy pattern, but we’ve also been very good about mentioning some of the potential downsides of using it (Additional objects, more required knowledge, etc). After reading this article, I hope we remain this informed about any other patterns we might talk about. I can see that it would be incredibly easy to not think about the needs of your users and therefor make it much worse to use by not paying attention to the patterns I use, so overall, I think I’m just going to be more mindful of my programming overall. Patterns are great, but there’s always a place for time to be spent on the designs of my code.

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/problem-with-patterns/ 

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.

 This week we discussed design smells (which I find endlessly amusing from a name standpoint), as well as the concept of design patterns. As a whole, design patterns are something that I had never thought of before now, though it makes perfect sense in retrospect. Programmers often run into the same kinds of problems or requirements for a project, so it makes perfect sense that we would have a set of designs that help to alleviate some of the problems surrounding them. I’ve always been one to writer code from scratch, or look up how to set something up in a basic sense, but these more abstract concepts aren’t something I had put much thought or research into. The article I’ve chosen to read for this week is “The Problem with Patterns” from A List Apart ,which is a
blog that specializes in having many writers from the Computer Science
industry comment on various issues and topics. I figured that it would be a good idea to look at some of the problems with patterns, so maybe I could learn to avoid them, while using them for the first time.

   The article talks about the problems with using design patterns, mostly from the perspective of the prospective user. Design patterns are good from the perspective of getting software completed and modular for the future, but most commonly used patterns focus more on just that, getting code done, rather than focusing on making it as usable as possible. This is compounded by the fact that since many designs are so readily available, it encourages programmers to use them without maybe understanding how they fully work, or the ramifications of using them in the first place. A design might look like it works for a specific purpose that suits your needs, but it most likely cannot be used for everything, so it requires more thought than just implementing them and being done with it. 

   We’ve mainly focused on one design pattern in class, the strategy pattern, but we’ve also been very good about mentioning some of the potential downsides of using it (Additional objects, more required knowledge, etc). After reading this article, I hope we remain this informed about any other patterns we might talk about. I can see that it would be incredibly easy to not think about the needs of your users and therefor make it much worse to use by not paying attention to the patterns I use, so overall, I think I’m just going to be more mindful of my programming overall. Patterns are great, but there’s always a place for time to be spent on the designs of my code.

ARTICLE LINK: https://alistapart.com/article/problem-with-patterns/ 

From the blog Camille's Cluttered Closet by Camille and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.