Reply to: .NET - In the Navy!

[DimPrawn]

.NET is everywhere.

Even humble household appliances are now running .NET

For example, I have a large lump hammer that is running .NET V2.0

Works a treat.

[Fungus]

Bug count depends on a resolution of an eye - look at water from tap and you won't see a thing, but use good microscope and you will see lots of bugs there.

Grass is greenest in Spring before the storms gather.

[threaded]

I thought them missiles with the cameras in them to see where they're going run FORTH (on them special purpose micros built for the job).

[Mordac]

If all the missile guidance systems are going to be in .Net, does that mean we'll have missiles falling out of the sky?

>Location Portsmouth, Hampshire

tulip, I'm working near there.

[AtW]

But those relegated to military were the ones with poor work, lots of bugs etc.

Bug count depends on a resolution of an eye - look at water from tap and you won't see a thing, but use good microscope and you will see lots of bugs there.

[Fungus]

Military is very much "do by the book" kind of thing, so its not suprising the jobs there are boring and creative people want to do something else - something where fault tolerance is much more relaxed.

But those relegated to military were the ones with poor work, lots of bugs etc.

[AtW]

What worried me is that the military work was seen as the place to send the duffers: those not bright enough to do the more interesting work.

Military is very much "do by the book" kind of thing, so its not suprising the jobs there are boring and creative people want to do something else - something where fault tolerance is much more relaxed.

[Fungus]

My work can be generally characterised as "fit for purpose". Thus if I worked on a nuclear missile I'd focus on (in this order of priority):

a) ensuring that it can only be launched by 200% authorised people

b) not blowing it up in the wrong place (ie during launch thus killing sub and potentially contaminating open water)

c) accurately reaching target - with some hard safeguards to prevent launching at targets that can't be possibly valid (ie London)

How fast the missile will run is out of programmers hands - its the job for missile engineers and it will be pretty much fixed constant.

Sorry. Silly me. Slapped wrists. Thankyou for providing accurate information. Thank goodness we can rely on such high quality workers.

I will now write out 1000 times: "I must be more literal and not make any attempt at humour no matter how tenuous". Then I will beat myself with Birch twigs, and run a half marathon stark bollock naked.

As an aside, I worked for a year on contract to IBM. What worried me is that the military work was seen as the place to send the duffers: those not bright enough to do the more interesting work.

[AtW]

I'd work out how to blame any problems on the hardware engineers first!

Well, I suppose you could do that, but my approach is to achieve results regardless or even despite efforts of others.

[AtW]

But if ATW wrote the code, the missile wouild have difficulty searching for the target, and would instead head for an unwanted alternative. Ah, but it would be a very fast missile. Very very fast.

My work can be generally characterised as "fit for purpose". Thus if I worked on a nuclear missile I'd focus on (in this order of priority):

a) ensuring that it can only be launched by 200% authorised people

b) not blowing it up in the wrong place (ie during launch thus killing sub and potentially contaminating open water)

c) accurately reaching target - with some hard safeguards to prevent launching at targets that can't be possibly valid (ie London)

How fast the missile will run is out of programmers hands - its the job for missile engineers and it will be pretty much fixed constant.

[Fungus]

But if ATW wrote the code, the missile wouild have difficulty searching for the target, and would instead head for an unwanted alternative. Ah, but it would be a very fast missile. Very very fast.

Psst: Beaten that upstart Google yet?

[darmstadt]

I know a navy that still uses COBOL on ships and submarines and a space agency that uses DB2 on interplanetary flights. The old ones still keep on working with no problems, give me that old fuddy.duddy stuff any day.

[AtW]

I still reckon it's not obligatory to actually blow things up after you've finished referring to them in code.

Lets, see shall we:

"The using statement defines a scope at the end of which an object will be disposed.

using (expression | type identifier = initializer) statement

where:

expression
An expression you want to call Dispose on upon exiting the using statement.

Remarks

You create an instance in a using statement to ensure that Dispose is called on the object when the using statement is exited. A using statement can be exited either when the end of the using statement is reached or if, for example, an exception is thrown and control leaves the statement block before the end of the statement.

The object you instantiate must implement the System.IDisposable interface.
"

Source: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...gdirective.asp

Therefore, its clear that:

a) NuclearMissile object will HAVE to implement IDisposable interface - otherwise it won't compile
b) Dispose will be called on NuclearMissile object when using {} ends, this means it will be called right after Launch was received

Conslution? A self-detonation (non nuclear) upon launch, since it will take far longer for actual physical Launch to happen than end of using {} it means that the thing will detonate immediately.

Since its Navy/Trident context here it means it will be launched from a sub, most certainly underwater, thus self-detonation is highly likely to destroy submarine and result in 100+ people deaths.

Am I ready to charge DimPrawn's rates for .NET consulting yet?

[thunderlizard]

You really are a humour tampon aren't you? I take it you're not a regular at the dinner parties of Notting Hill. Shan't bother in future.



I still reckon it's not obligatory to actually blow things up after you've finished referring to them in code.

[AtW]

Hey there AtW, how you doing?

Very well thanks for asking!

That's a very literal interpretation. By the same argument you could say that my missile had no physical existence until I instantiated it in my code.

Nope - AFAIK "using" keyword can only be used on objects that implement IDisposable interface. As soon as object's live is over, which is end of scope for that var, a dispose code will be called - and how would missile implement it? The only logical explanation is that it will self destruct.

Anyway, I wasn't planning on calling the destructor right away. By the time the garbage collector gets round to it, the Trident should be past Magaluf at least.

Its not controlled by you - which is the point of "using" keyword, it effectively forced dispose call as soon as disposable object is left scope, the idea is to dispose of resources much quicker because stupid GC loves to keep objects around (if it detects lots of free memory in the system).

I'd say your example backfire