Skip to main content


Showing posts from April, 2015


I've been doing a little performance prototyping and my usual technique of logging milliseconds spent doesn't quite cut it as the result fluctuates between 0ms and 1ms - not enough granularity to allow for any useful comparison. Switching to nanoseconds does the trick - case A is a little over 0.6ms slower than case B in my test... Cool! What's the difference between a nanosecond(10 −9 ) and a microsecond(10 −6 )? Grace puts it in perspective... but I'm talking milliseconds(10 −3 )... so that'd be just shy of 300km per ms or 180km longer in A compared to B. What a waste...

Waterfall v Agile v Reckless

I was recently asked when I would use an agile instead of waterfall methodology to which I don't think I gave a very good answer at the time. These things tend to dwell in the mind; in this case at 3am!, and though thoughts at such a hour aren't necessarily too be trusted, here goes. "Quality, time, cost - pick any two", is an often quoted project management notion which I'll not go in to. A similar triplet can be used to identify which methodology to choose - functionality, time and cost. The idea goes like this - you can prioritise any two of functionality, time or cost and doing so will tell you which method to use: Prioritise functionality & cost over time - use waterfall . You know what you want so you can plan it all out up-front, minimise technical-debt, reduce redundancy and keep costs down. It may though be that it takes longer than you really want before you see anything go live. Good for fixed-price work, anything where the scope is well defined an

My big fat hairy....

... so I've just been told the most important thing about a computer is the number of "pouce" it has (thumbs to you and me). Humm... well, ok. Mine generally has two at most and I get angry if it's got any more. My father in-law has 15.6 of them. Wow! That's one powerful machine (I guess)!?