They Changed It! Now It Sucks! 
2011.03.14 08:51 - Entertainment, Microcode, Internet Stupidity, Whining
Been playing Dragon Age 2 for the better part of the last week. After some ridiculous number of hours, I've finally cleared the first act. ... I'm a little slow, here. I also gave up and turned the difficulty down to 'Casual'. Haven't quite got the hang of managing a whole party in this game, and the big fights seem to require it.

As noted, I'm a little slow, so while I've been getting out of tutorial land and into the meat of the game, the ├╝ber-nerds seem to have already cleared the game. Good for them. I'm seeing complaints (have been seeing for weeks/months, actually) that Dragon Age 2 is a poor sequel on the basis that changes a bunch of things, retroactively: the appearance of the Qunari being the most obviously visible change. BioWare was said (paraphrasing) to be selling out, EA was blamed, assertions were made about the long-term impact of this strategy on BioWare, and generally much hay was made by the nerds in the audience about the downfall of BioWare.

All I can say is this: the PC version of Mass Effect? Super crashy on my machine. Dragon Age? Also very unstable; so much so that I abandoned it before finishing the Battle of Ostagar. Dragon Age 2 has not crashed yet, and I've only run into a bugged quest (very annoying, but not the end of the world). If this is the result of EA's influence on BioWare, I think I'll take it.
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
head.pound(desk) 
2011.02.09 08:46 - Whining, Work-related
I was informed yesterday the interface to a library introduced in our current release is changing in our next-current0 release, to support a change in our data model: function A is being replaced with function B, which has the same parameters and return type with a different name.

Although function B is named more accurately than function A with respect to current understandings, this could have been avoided by giving A a more generic name in the first place, and the description is not so wrong as to confuse anybody currently working on the project. I suggested that function A could, instead, be rewritten to perform the new behavior, thereby reducing impact on other code. I was told that perhaps I would like to write the library, next time.

Not that it was ever an option, because $other_developer would rather pull an 80 hour week than delegate work he finds interesting. Frustratingly, I like $other_developer, but I'd just as soon not have our next-current release be a bigger screw up than it's already going to be1.

Footnotes
0. This is another point of consternation.
1. So much consternation.

  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Not dead, just tired 
2010.11.30 20:24 - Entertainment, Books, Movies, Meatspace Stupidity, Whining, Work-related
Criminy, it's almost December.

I think I can sum up my life the last month as: work, TV zombies, work, TV spies, work, TV spaceship, work, work, cartoons, more cartoons, minecraft, work, TV zombies, work, etc.

I've read Monster Hunter Vendetta, am most of the way through Unseen Academicals, watched a movie or two, eaten some turkey, and have otherwise been a little too shelled from work to devote much time to life outside my head.

Two and a half more weeks to the end of the year, for me. I think I owe my employer two-hundred-odd unit tests and some additional code in the meantime, though.

Oh, and I've been listening to The Protomen. First album's okay, second's very good.
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Other People Should Make My Life Easier 
2010.08.27 09:29 - Entertainment, Microcode, Whining, Work-related
I'd like to be able to do something like this
try {
    /* and then, a miracle occurs! */
} catch (BarException beFoo => String.Equals(be.Property, "Foo")) {
    // foo handler
} catch (BarException beBar => String.Equal(be.Property, "Bar")) {
    // bar handler
} catch (BarException be) {
    // general BarException handler
}
Mostly because it seems slightly cleaner than the current approach to handling, e. g., OracleExceptions, where one might care about some of the error codes represented by the exception, but not all of them:
try {
    /* and then, a miracle occurs! */
} catch (BarException be) {
    if (String.Equals(be.Property, "Foo")) {
    // foo handler
    } else if (String.Equals(be.Property, "Bar")) {
    // bar handler
    } else {
    // general BarException handler
    }
}
Some flexibility is lost vs. using if-else statements instead, but you could produce the same thing with typeof and nobody sane does that if they can get out of it, either. Semantically, it's pretty much equivalent and, syntactically, it's more verbose (to no obvious semantic advantage), so I'm sure it's not actually a good idea. (Additional evidence it's a bad idea: I'm sure I'm not the first to hit on this idea, yet it isn't implement in C# as far as I can tell. Presumably, those guys know what they're doing.)

Granted, it would be even better if Oracle would throw different exception types for different error codes instead of throwing the one type with slightly different data, but some problems seem, prima facie, less intractable than others.
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink
Ugh. 
2010.06.21 08:13 - Whining
It is 10 after 8 in the morning, the temperature is almost 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and humidity's 84%.

I can't tell if my forehead is damp because of sweat or condensation.
  |  [ 0 trackbacks ]   |  permalink

Back Next