Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #460550 > unrolled thread

[OT] I got a JOB!!!

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 13:49 -0500
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-16 11:55 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 15:13 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 17:18 -0500
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> - 2017-05-16 19:04 +0000
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 12:14 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 14:41 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 14:01 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! mike <ham789@netzero.net> - 2017-05-16 14:42 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 17:09 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 16:42 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:00 +1000
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-05-16 13:40 -0700
    [OT] I got a JOB!!! bulegoge@columbus.rr.com - 2017-05-16 12:27 -0700
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! eric.jacobsen@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 20:17 +0000
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 15:24 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 22:05 +0100
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 17:11 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-16 23:51 +0100
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 18:32 -0500
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <clifford.heath@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 09:41 +1000
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 09:35 +0100
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-17 19:03 +1000
                      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:31 +0100
                        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-05-17 23:07 +1000
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 09:41 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:10 +0100
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 10:34 +0100
                      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 15:59 +0100
                        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:04 +0100
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:02 +0100
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 17:56 -0700
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 09:42 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:57 +0800
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-16 15:04 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-16 15:30 -0700
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-18 16:00 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-18 16:18 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-18 19:14 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! "billbowden" <bperryb@bowdenshobbycircuits.info> - 2017-05-18 21:40 -0700
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-05-16 20:02 -0400
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:40 -0400
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Randy Yates <randyy@garnerundergroundinc.com> - 2017-05-17 09:12 -0400
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-17 10:02 -0500
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:11 +0100
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 12:21 -0500
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:36 +0100
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 12:43 -0500
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:55 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 18:57 +0100
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-17 13:28 -0500
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-17 20:08 +0100
    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-05-17 21:30 -0700
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-18 00:03 -0500
      Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-05-18 08:18 +0100
        Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-05-18 22:56 -0700
          Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Vassilis Spiliopoulos <vassilis@vask1lux.de> - 2017-05-19 14:31 +0300
            Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-19 10:39 -0500
              Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Vassilis Spiliopoulos <vassilis@vask1lux.de> - 2017-05-19 23:02 +0300
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-19 13:12 -0700
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! dplatt@coop.radagast.org (Dave Platt) - 2017-05-19 15:00 -0700
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-05-19 16:05 -0700
                Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! boB K7IQ <boB@everett.wa> - 2017-05-21 01:46 -0700
                  Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! Vassilis Spiliopoulos <vassilis@vask1lux.de> - 2017-05-21 17:31 +0300
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-05-21 13:31 -0500
                    Re: [OT] I got a JOB!!! krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-21 16:47 -0400

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#460603

On 17/05/17 09:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>
>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>
>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all the
>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>
>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>
>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>
>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you can't
>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are not
>>>> sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>
>>> Yea verily!!
>>
>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate required
>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase has
>> become ossified.
>>
>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>
> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
> that to be an issue.  Good to know!

TDD works where it gives you *another way* to state your expectations.
Testing getter/setters never says more about the getter/setter than
is said by their declaration, so the tests have zero value.

The important thing is to say "how else can I state this requirement?".
If you're using truly succinct code, such as strongly-typed Haskell,
there often is simply *no other way* to describe the expected behavior.
That's why FP aficionados scoff at TDD zealots. Programming with strong
types is always better than using TDD.

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460645

On 17/05/17 00:41, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 17/05/17 09:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all the
>>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>>
>>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>>
>>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>>
>>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you can't
>>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are not
>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>>
>>>> Yea verily!!
>>>
>>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate required
>>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase has
>>> become ossified.
>>>
>>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>>
>> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
>> that to be an issue.  Good to know!
>
> TDD works where it gives you *another way* to state your expectations.
> Testing getter/setters never says more about the getter/setter than
> is said by their declaration, so the tests have zero value.

Er, that's not TDD, that is Unit Tests. To be overly
simplistic, TDD is a strategy for generating Unit Tests.


> The important thing is to say "how else can I state this requirement?".
> If you're using truly succinct code, such as strongly-typed Haskell,
> there often is simply *no other way* to describe the expected behavior.
> That's why FP aficionados scoff at TDD zealots. Programming with strong
> types is always better than using TDD.

Strong typing is very beneficial, but is completely
insufficient. As one of an infinite number of trivial
examples, consider testing for X>Y when you should
be testing for Y>X.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460649

On 17/05/17 18:35, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 17/05/17 00:41, Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 17/05/17 09:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea verily!!
>>>>
>>>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>>>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>>>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>>>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate
>>>> required
>>>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>>>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>>>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase
>>>> has
>>>> become ossified.
>>>>
>>>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>>>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
>>> that to be an issue.  Good to know!
>>
>> TDD works where it gives you *another way* to state your expectations.
>> Testing getter/setters never says more about the getter/setter than
>> is said by their declaration, so the tests have zero value.
>
> Er, that's not TDD, that is Unit Tests. To be overly
> simplistic, TDD is a strategy for generating Unit Tests.

Good code, in the best languages, can be read like a spec.
When that happens, your code and your test is the same thing,
expressed in the same way. Nothing is achieved by writing it
twice.

>> The important thing is to say "how else can I state this requirement?".
>> If you're using truly succinct code, such as strongly-typed Haskell,
>> there often is simply *no other way* to describe the expected behavior.
>> That's why FP aficionados scoff at TDD zealots. Programming with strong
>> types is always better than using TDD.
>
> Strong typing is very beneficial, but is completely
> insufficient. As one of an infinite number of trivial
> examples, consider testing for X>Y when you should
> be testing for Y>X.

If you got the code wrong, you'll get the test wrong too.
That what I mean by "another way to describe" expected behaviour.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460651

On 17/05/17 10:03, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 17/05/17 18:35, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 17/05/17 00:41, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 17/05/17 09:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>>>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>>>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>>>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>>>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you
>>>>>>> can't
>>>>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> sufficient.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yea verily!!
>>>>>
>>>>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>>>>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>>>>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>>>>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate
>>>>> required
>>>>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>>>>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>>>>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase
>>>>> has
>>>>> become ossified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>>>>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
>>>> that to be an issue.  Good to know!
>>>
>>> TDD works where it gives you *another way* to state your expectations.
>>> Testing getter/setters never says more about the getter/setter than
>>> is said by their declaration, so the tests have zero value.
>>
>> Er, that's not TDD, that is Unit Tests. To be overly
>> simplistic, TDD is a strategy for generating Unit Tests.
>
> Good code, in the best languages, can be read like a spec.
> When that happens, your code and your test is the same thing,
> expressed in the same way. Nothing is achieved by writing it
> twice.

Sigh.

Consider a spec such as "95th percentile latency of
less than 10ms". Good luck expressing that in your
code; testing it is difficult enough.

More generally, consider that specifications normally
deal with what needs to be achieved, and shouldn't
specify how they are to be achieved. That is
particularly apparent in hardware/software/mechanical
systems, where the implementation of required behaviour
could be in discrete transistors, HDL, software,
or sheets of metal.

Having pointed that out, I know what you are trying
to say and it is worth achieving. But in the real
world it is never that simple.


>>> The important thing is to say "how else can I state this requirement?".
>>> If you're using truly succinct code, such as strongly-typed Haskell,
>>> there often is simply *no other way* to describe the expected behavior.
>>> That's why FP aficionados scoff at TDD zealots. Programming with strong
>>> types is always better than using TDD.
>>
>> Strong typing is very beneficial, but is completely
>> insufficient. As one of an infinite number of trivial
>> examples, consider testing for X>Y when you should
>> be testing for Y>X.
>
> If you got the code wrong, you'll get the test wrong too.
> That what I mean by "another way to describe" expected behaviour.

Not necessarily. I suggest you read comp.risks
for many many many examples where your presumptions
are too simplistic in the real world.

I get the feeling your experience in this area
is with academic problems - which are valuable
pedagogical examples, but no more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460654

On 17/05/17 19:31, Tom Gardner wrote:
> I get the feeling your experience in this area
> is with academic problems - which are valuable
> pedagogical examples, but no more.

We had this discussion before. I don't want to do it again.

I personally wrote most of a million of lines of code which is
performing daily core management functions on over ten million
enterprise computers, including almost all the computers used
in the armed forces of three OECD nations, as well as a number
of banks, oil companies, national postal services, etc.

I'm well aware of the requirements that cannot even be
expressed, let alone tested. I'm also well aware of the
general state of ignorance about what *can* be achieved.

Any more ignorant accusations?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460646

On 17/05/17 00:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>
>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>
>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all the
>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>
>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>
>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>
>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you can't
>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are not
>>>> sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>
>>> Yea verily!!
>>
>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate required
>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase has
>> become ossified.
>>
>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>
> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
> that to be an issue.  Good to know!

The simple point to bear in mind is that the results of TDD
are only as good as the quality of the tests. Test the
wrong/unimportant thing, or don't test important behaviour,
and the outcome can be "suboptimal".

That's not a difficult point (to put it mildly!), but it
is horrifying how it is ignored by zealots and/or not
appreciated by inexperienced.

The best defense is, to quote one of the two mottoes
worth a damn, "Think". No change there, then!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460650

In article <B0USA.14491$8r1.938@fx42.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk 
says...
.......
> The simple point to bear in mind is that the results of TDD
> are only as good as the quality of the tests. Test the
> wrong/unimportant thing, or don't test important behaviour,
> and the outcome can be "suboptimal".
> 
> That's not a difficult point (to put it mildly!), but it
> is horrifying how it is ignored by zealots and/or not
> appreciated by inexperienced.
> 
> The best defense is, to quote one of the two mottoes
> worth a damn, "Think". No change there, then!

The Titanic sank but I bet nearly all the individual parts past their 
unit tests.

Or the video I saw on Dev Humor a while back of sliding door and bolt
to lock door fixed wrong way. Each part past its unit tests.

-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/LogicCell/> Logic Gate Education
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/>     Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/>    For those web sites you hate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460652

On 17/05/17 10:10, Paul wrote:
> In article <B0USA.14491$8r1.938@fx42.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
> says...
> .......
>> The simple point to bear in mind is that the results of TDD
>> are only as good as the quality of the tests. Test the
>> wrong/unimportant thing, or don't test important behaviour,
>> and the outcome can be "suboptimal".
>>
>> That's not a difficult point (to put it mildly!), but it
>> is horrifying how it is ignored by zealots and/or not
>> appreciated by inexperienced.
>>
>> The best defense is, to quote one of the two mottoes
>> worth a damn, "Think". No change there, then!
>
> The Titanic sank but I bet nearly all the individual parts past their
> unit tests.
>
> Or the video I saw on Dev Humor a while back of sliding door and bolt
> to lock door fixed wrong way. Each part past its unit tests.

Yup.

None of this is difficult, but it does seem
to escape some people :(

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460663

In article <xOUSA.16651$C56.666@fx34.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk 
says...
> 
> On 17/05/17 10:10, Paul wrote:
> > In article <B0USA.14491$8r1.938@fx42.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
> > says...
> > .......
> >> The simple point to bear in mind is that the results of TDD
> >> are only as good as the quality of the tests. Test the
> >> wrong/unimportant thing, or don't test important behaviour,
> >> and the outcome can be "suboptimal".
> >>
> >> That's not a difficult point (to put it mildly!), but it
> >> is horrifying how it is ignored by zealots and/or not
> >> appreciated by inexperienced.
> >>
> >> The best defense is, to quote one of the two mottoes
> >> worth a damn, "Think". No change there, then!
> >
> > The Titanic sank but I bet nearly all the individual parts past their
> > unit tests.
> >
> > Or the video I saw on Dev Humor a while back of sliding door and bolt
> > to lock door fixed wrong way. Each part past its unit tests.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> None of this is difficult, but it does seem
> to escape some people :(

Some of the classic videos

http://devhumor.com/media/2-unit-tests-0-integration-tests

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GypdsJulKE



-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/LogicCell/> Logic Gate Education
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/>     Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/>    For those web sites you hate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460671

On 17/05/17 15:59, Paul wrote:
> In article <xOUSA.16651$C56.666@fx34.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
> says...
>>
>> On 17/05/17 10:10, Paul wrote:
>>> In article <B0USA.14491$8r1.938@fx42.am4>, spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
>>> says...
>>> .......
>>>> The simple point to bear in mind is that the results of TDD
>>>> are only as good as the quality of the tests. Test the
>>>> wrong/unimportant thing, or don't test important behaviour,
>>>> and the outcome can be "suboptimal".
>>>>
>>>> That's not a difficult point (to put it mildly!), but it
>>>> is horrifying how it is ignored by zealots and/or not
>>>> appreciated by inexperienced.
>>>>
>>>> The best defense is, to quote one of the two mottoes
>>>> worth a damn, "Think". No change there, then!
>>>
>>> The Titanic sank but I bet nearly all the individual parts past their
>>> unit tests.
>>>
>>> Or the video I saw on Dev Humor a while back of sliding door and bolt
>>> to lock door fixed wrong way. Each part past its unit tests.
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>> None of this is difficult, but it does seem
>> to escape some people :(
>
> Some of the classic videos
>
> http://devhumor.com/media/2-unit-tests-0-integration-tests
>
> and
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GypdsJulKE

:)

Of course there's a good argument that much (most?)
"integration testing" is really just "unit testing"
with larger units.

People can get too stuck on the specific definition
(of unit) they have been taught.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460670

On 17/05/17 00:32, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:51:26 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>
>> On 16/05/17 23:11, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 22:05:49 +0100, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/05/17 21:24, Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:17:17 +0000, eric.jacobsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 16 May 2017 13:49:28 -0500, Tim Wescott
>>>>>> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a
>>>>>>> day job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so
>>>>>>> any circuit design or control systems jones will have to be
>>>>>>> satisfied by hobby work or on the side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Software Designer 5?   Sounds a little like being in Sector 7-G?
>>>>>
>>>>> "Really Senior Embedded Guy".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
>>>>>>> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
>>>>>>> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
>>>>>>> proselytizing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Time Division Duplex?
>>>>>
>>>>> Test Driven Design.
>>>>
>>>> Be prepared to meet some people that believe X works /because/ all the
>>>> unit tests for X are passed and the console shows a green light.
>>>
>>> Well, yes.  The two main good things about TDD for me is that it makes
>>> me think early about how something really should work, and there are
>>> finer- grained tests to make sure that if I did something really
>>> dumbass it gets caught.
>>>
>>> Even with TDD, I still find errors, so I don't live under the delusion
>>> that you can test in quality.
>>>
>>>> Usually they have never been introduced to the concept that "you can't
>>>> test quality into a product".
>>>> Unit tests developed as part of TDD are highly beneficial, but are not
>>>> sufficient.
>>>>
>>>> But I'm sure you know that!
>>>
>>> Yea verily!!
>>
>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>> while they are very useful when making incremental improvements during
>> design, they can be a real impediment in a few months/years time. The
>> problem is that over time people forget which tests demonstrate required
>> properties, and which are merely ensuring behaviour of implementation
>> artifacts. At that point people are afraid to make changes that break
>> tests, even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the codebase has
>> become ossified.
>>
>> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on getters/setters,
>> and/or changing visibility solely to enable unit tests.
>
> That's an interesting point.  I haven't been using TDD long enough for
> that to be an issue.  Good to know!

Another stumbling block can be to get people to consider
the definition of "unit" in a unit test. Too frequently
they equate it with "unit" = class/method.

Sometimes they have difficulty thinking that unit can be
a subsystem - they think that /can't/ be unit testing
because it is "integration testing".

If they argue, get them to define what they mean by
a "unit test", and then point out that actually their
"unit test" isn't testing a unit. It is testing the
integration of their code and library code (and
compiler and runtime).

The corollary is that TDD mentality and technology
can - and often should - be applied to integration
testing. All you have to do is increase the granularity
of the UUT.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460616

On 5/16/2017 3:51 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
> while they are very useful when making incremental
> improvements during design, they can be a real
> impediment in a few months/years time. The problem is
> that over time people forget which tests demonstrate
> required properties, and which are merely ensuring
> behaviour of implementation artifacts. At that point
> people are afraid to make changes that break tests,
> even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the
> codebase has become ossified.

But that's true any time you (attempt to) nail down
an aspect of a design.  Moreso if you don't provide a
rationale for WHY the requirement (whether it be from a
spec or a test) was imposed.

It's like having a law go before a judge and the
judge having only the text of the law on which to base
his ruling -- he needs context as to the *intent*
to more correctly understand it.

I've taken to moving towards "prose" descriptions instead
of "legalese specsmanship" in defining how systems "should"
work.  Describe particular examples and how the "ought to's"
apply instead of just listing a set of SHALLs and SHALL NOTs.

Ditto with regression tests ("WHY is this test here?")

The kinds of gross perversions that a particular piece of
software is expected to not just *tolerate* but expeditiously
*accommodate* are unheard of in most other disciplines.

Like taking a 10W wall wart and deciding it should now support
a wider range of input voltages, an additional output and
three times the power rating -- without changing the size
of the package or its selling price.

Or, adding another floor to a preexisting building.  Etc.

> Classic anti-patterns warning of that: unit tests on
> getters/setters, and/or changing visibility solely
> to enable unit tests.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460647

On 17/05/17 01:56, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/16/2017 3:51 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>> while they are very useful when making incremental
>> improvements during design, they can be a real
>> impediment in a few months/years time. The problem is
>> that over time people forget which tests demonstrate
>> required properties, and which are merely ensuring
>> behaviour of implementation artifacts. At that point
>> people are afraid to make changes that break tests,
>> even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the
>> codebase has become ossified.
>
> But that's true any time you (attempt to) nail down
> an aspect of a design.  Moreso if you don't provide a
> rationale for WHY the requirement (whether it be from a
> spec or a test) was imposed.

Of course. Nonetheless, it happens - and zealots
sometimes refuse to admit it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460648

AT Wednesday 17 May 2017 16:42, Tom Gardner wrote:

> On 17/05/17 01:56, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/16/2017 3:51 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> The other dysfunctional aspect of unit tests is that,
>>> while they are very useful when making incremental
>>> improvements during design, they can be a real
>>> impediment in a few months/years time. The problem is
>>> that over time people forget which tests demonstrate
>>> required properties, and which are merely ensuring
>>> behaviour of implementation artifacts. At that point
>>> people are afraid to make changes that break tests,
>>> even if the tests are unimportant. At that point the
>>> codebase has become ossified.
>>
>> But that's true any time you (attempt to) nail down
>> an aspect of a design.  Moreso if you don't provide a
>> rationale for WHY the requirement (whether it be from a
>> spec or a test) was imposed.
> 
> Of course. Nonetheless, it happens - and zealots
> sometimes refuse to admit it.

Therefor any good development process demands that requirements (high-level, 
or low-level) must be traceable to system requirements or must be marked as 
design decisions. Then you have the WHY.
A test can not be the source of a requirement. A test should also be 
traceable to sys-reqs.
And hopefully the sys-reqs are good.

-- 
Reinhardt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460587

"Tim Wescott" <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote in message 
news:0cCdndKxRuwl1IbEnZ2dnUU7-bWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Since this is a newsgroup, and this is news...
>
> Wescott Design Services is going into remission, while I pursue a day
> job.  Job title is Software Designer 5 at Planar Systems -- so any
> circuit design or control systems jones will have to be satisfied by
> hobby work or on the side.
>
> In the near term I'll be finishing up current work with current
> customers; in the longer term I'll probably concentrate on the
> educational videos and maybe hobby stuff.
>
> Lots of embedded Linux work in my near future, and possibly TDD
> proselytizing.
>
> -- 
>
> Tim Wescott
> Wescott Design Services
> http://www.wescottdesign.com
>
> I'm looking for work -- see my website!

Good luck. I don't have any job and got a traffic ticket for $238 plus $54 
to attend traffic school. I plan to fight the case since the signs are not 
properly posted. If I lose, I will ask for community service and tell the 
court I have no money and would like to pick up trash on the roads. The city 
pays $10 an hour for picking up trash. Or, I might get an easier job working 
in a senior centor. Time will tell. I made an illegal left turn where the 
signs are hard to see. There is a picture here::

https://ibb.co/jUv3t5

.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460592

On 5/16/2017 3:04 PM, billbowden wrote:
> Good luck. I don't have any job and got a traffic ticket for $238 plus $54
> to attend traffic school. I plan to fight the case since the signs are not
> properly posted.

If the ticket was a "photo citation" (i.e., if a real human didn't
see you and cite you) you can often beat the wrap by hiding from the
process server.  YMMV.  A neighbor did this and the charges were
dropped (part of accepting the "ticket" is waiving your right to be
served; so, never responding to the "ticket" means you've NOT
waived your right to service... making it encumbant on The System
to officially serve you.]

> If I lose, I will ask for community service and tell the
> court I have no money and would like to pick up trash on the roads. The city
> pays $10 an hour for picking up trash. Or, I might get an easier job working
> in a senior centor. Time will tell. I made an illegal left turn where the
> signs are hard to see. There is a picture here::

Many of the non-profits at which I've volunteered "accept"
community service workers.  Never having delved into their
specific details, it *seems* like hours are exchanged at
roughly $10.

Note that you may not be able to avoid the "traffic school"
charges; these sorts of things often have lots of little
gotchas in the fine print.

[Failing to do the traffic school may also ding your auto
insurance premium, disproportionately.  Just make sure you
understand ALL of the tradeoffs!]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460866

"Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message 
news:offub2$r16$1@dont-email.me...
> On 5/16/2017 3:04 PM, billbowden wrote:
>> Good luck. I don't have any job and got a traffic ticket for $238 plus 
>> $54
>> to attend traffic school. I plan to fight the case since the signs are 
>> not
>> properly posted.
>
> If the ticket was a "photo citation" (i.e., if a real human didn't
> see you and cite you) you can often beat the wrap by hiding from the
> process server.  YMMV.  A neighbor did this and the charges were
> dropped (part of accepting the "ticket" is waiving your right to be
> served; so, never responding to the "ticket" means you've NOT
> waived your right to service... making it encumbant on The System
> to officially serve you.]
>
>> If I lose, I will ask for community service and tell the
>> court I have no money and would like to pick up trash on the roads. The 
>> city
>> pays $10 an hour for picking up trash. Or, I might get an easier job 
>> working
>> in a senior centor. Time will tell. I made an illegal left turn where the
>> signs are hard to see. There is a picture here::
>
> Many of the non-profits at which I've volunteered "accept"
> community service workers.  Never having delved into their
> specific details, it *seems* like hours are exchanged at
> roughly $10.
>
> Note that you may not be able to avoid the "traffic school"
> charges; these sorts of things often have lots of little
> gotchas in the fine print.
>
> [Failing to do the traffic school may also ding your auto
> insurance premium, disproportionately.  Just make sure you
> understand ALL of the tradeoffs!]

I can't get any information on tradeoffs. When I go to the courthouse they 
just tell me the judge will decide all the details. They told me if I submit 
a "Trial by Declaration" I was pleading not guilty and may not be eligible 
for trsffic school. Nobody knows anything at the courthouse. The judge 
determines everything. But I can appeal the case if I lose.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460867

On 5/18/2017 4:00 PM, billbowden wrote:
> I can't get any information on tradeoffs. When I go to the courthouse they
> just tell me the judge will decide all the details. They told me if I submit
> a "Trial by Declaration" I was pleading not guilty and may not be eligible
> for trsffic school. Nobody knows anything at the courthouse. The judge
> determines everything. But I can appeal the case if I lose.

*Someone* knows the scoop.  Finding him/her will be the problem.

A neighbor got caught in one of the "red light cameras" (before they
were made illegal), here.  They sent him a <mumble> (there is a
technical term and I'm not sure "citation" is accurate).  Complete
with photographs of him in his vehicle at the time of the "violation".

With a bit of research, he was able to determine that simply *ignoring*
the mailing (it wasn't sent "certified" or by any other verifiable/traceable
means) he could effectively act as if it had never arrived.

But, to do this, he ALSO couldn't "visit the web site to see the original
copies of these photos" -- because the URL presented was obviously highly
unique to *him* and his "violation"; a visit (by anyone?) of that particular
URL (with password) would essentially act as proof that he'd received the
mailing and ignored it!

After his "30 day grace period" in which he could effectively plead
guilty, waive the right to be formally "served" AND pay the fine, the
onus is on the gummit (at least in our local case) to ensure he has been
notified of his offense -- by sending a process server to contact him
personally.

The gummit has a 90 (? 120??) day window in which to perform this service
before the "offense" falls off the books.  So, for that period of time,
he didn't answer the door or phone and would peek out the window before
leaving the house.

Seems like a real imposition but at $500 it was one that he figured he could
live with!  :>

[Apparently, there are all sorts of caveats that lie in fine-legalese-print;
like if your wife (or any other "responsible adult") answers the door, the
process server's duty is discharged -- it is then the responsibility of that
"responsible adult" to convey the notice of service to you.]

Apparently, this was a relatively common dodge as it was even covered on a
local news story (there was a fair bit of outrage over the "photo enforcement"
which led to the citizen's initiative to have all such things prohibited
"unless witnessed by a duly sworn officer...")

I.e., it may be worth a bit of your time to see how things are handled,
locally -- all while keeping your name/case number off the record!

Good Luck!  (drive safer, next time)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460877

On Thu, 18 May 2017 16:00:04 -0700, billbowden wrote:

> "Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message
> news:offub2$r16$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/16/2017 3:04 PM, billbowden wrote:
>>> Good luck. I don't have any job and got a traffic ticket for $238 plus
>>> $54 to attend traffic school. I plan to fight the case since the signs
>>> are not properly posted.
>>
>> If the ticket was a "photo citation" (i.e., if a real human didn't see
>> you and cite you) you can often beat the wrap by hiding from the
>> process server.  YMMV.  A neighbor did this and the charges were
>> dropped (part of accepting the "ticket" is waiving your right to be
>> served; so, never responding to the "ticket" means you've NOT waived
>> your right to service... making it encumbant on The System to
>> officially serve you.]
>>
>>> If I lose, I will ask for community service and tell the court I have
>>> no money and would like to pick up trash on the roads. The city pays
>>> $10 an hour for picking up trash. Or, I might get an easier job
>>> working in a senior centor. Time will tell. I made an illegal left
>>> turn where the signs are hard to see. There is a picture here::
>>
>> Many of the non-profits at which I've volunteered "accept" community
>> service workers.  Never having delved into their specific details, it
>> *seems* like hours are exchanged at roughly $10.
>>
>> Note that you may not be able to avoid the "traffic school" charges;
>> these sorts of things often have lots of little gotchas in the fine
>> print.
>>
>> [Failing to do the traffic school may also ding your auto insurance
>> premium, disproportionately.  Just make sure you understand ALL of the
>> tradeoffs!]
> 
> I can't get any information on tradeoffs. When I go to the courthouse
> they just tell me the judge will decide all the details. They told me if
> I submit a "Trial by Declaration" I was pleading not guilty and may not
> be eligible for trsffic school. Nobody knows anything at the courthouse.
> The judge determines everything. But I can appeal the case if I lose.

If you have to know, and want to fight, get a lawyer.  Otherwise just 
fling yourself on the charity of the judge.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#460902

"Tim Wescott" <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote in message 
news:odGdnW_tCdxtpYPEnZ2dnUU7-UudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On Thu, 18 May 2017 16:00:04 -0700, billbowden wrote:
>
>> "Don Y" <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:offub2$r16$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 5/16/2017 3:04 PM, billbowden wrote:
>>>> Good luck. I don't have any job and got a traffic ticket for $238 plus
>>>> $54 to attend traffic school. I plan to fight the case since the signs
>>>> are not properly posted.
>>>
>>> If the ticket was a "photo citation" (i.e., if a real human didn't see
>>> you and cite you) you can often beat the wrap by hiding from the
>>> process server.  YMMV.  A neighbor did this and the charges were
>>> dropped (part of accepting the "ticket" is waiving your right to be
>>> served; so, never responding to the "ticket" means you've NOT waived
>>> your right to service... making it encumbant on The System to
>>> officially serve you.]
>>>
>>>> If I lose, I will ask for community service and tell the court I have
>>>> no money and would like to pick up trash on the roads. The city pays
>>>> $10 an hour for picking up trash. Or, I might get an easier job
>>>> working in a senior centor. Time will tell. I made an illegal left
>>>> turn where the signs are hard to see. There is a picture here::
>>>
>>> Many of the non-profits at which I've volunteered "accept" community
>>> service workers.  Never having delved into their specific details, it
>>> *seems* like hours are exchanged at roughly $10.
>>>
>>> Note that you may not be able to avoid the "traffic school" charges;
>>> these sorts of things often have lots of little gotchas in the fine
>>> print.
>>>
>>> [Failing to do the traffic school may also ding your auto insurance
>>> premium, disproportionately.  Just make sure you understand ALL of the
>>> tradeoffs!]
>>
>> I can't get any information on tradeoffs. When I go to the courthouse
>> they just tell me the judge will decide all the details. They told me if
>> I submit a "Trial by Declaration" I was pleading not guilty and may not
>> be eligible for trsffic school. Nobody knows anything at the courthouse.
>> The judge determines everything. But I can appeal the case if I lose.
>
> If you have to know, and want to fight, get a lawyer.  Otherwise just
> fling yourself on the charity of the judge.
>

Yes, a lawyer would help but I would have to pay the lawyer $400 to to take 
the case so it's not worth it. .Years ago, I was arrested for supposedly 
being drunk in a vehicle. But it was 2AM in the morning and I hadn't had a 
drink for at least 4 hours. The lawyer just made a deal with the DA to drop 
the charges in exchange for me paying $100 in court costs. So, it cost me 
$300 for the lawyer and another $100 for the court. They let me out of jail 
with no shoes wearing a wrist band with my case number. I tried to get a 
ride hitch hiking home but nobody would pick me up. So, I walked home. Money 
talks. All you have to do is pay the fine and  all other problems go away

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web