Skip to main content

With a New Soyuz Rocket, Russia Seeks to Break Its Ukrainian Dependency

6 hours 58 minutes ago
Russia's new Soyuz-5 rocket is set for a December debut as Moscow seeks to end reliance on Ukrainian technology and replace its aging Proton-M fleet. Ars Technica reports: According to the report, translated for Ars by Rob Mitchell, the debut launch of Soyuz-5 will mark the first of several demonstration flights, with full operational service not expected to begin until 2028. It will launch from the Baikonur spaceport in Kazakhstan. From an innovation standpoint, the Soyuz-5 vehicle does not stand out. It has been a decade in the making and is fully expendable, unlike a lot of newer medium-lift rockets coming online in the next several years. However, for Russia, this is an important advancement because it seeks to break some of the country's dependency on Ukraine for launch technology.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

BeauHD

Representative Line: Not What They Meant By Watching "AndOr"

7 hours 28 minutes ago

Today's awfulness comes from Tim H, and while it's technically more than one line, it's so representative of the code, and so short that I'm going to call this a representative line. Before we get to the code, we need to talk a little history.

Tim's project is roughly three decades old. It's a C++ tool used for a variety of research projects, and this means that 90% of the people who have worked on it are PhD candidates in computer science programs. We all know the rule of CompSci PhDs and programming: they're terrible at it. It's like the old joke about the farmer who, when unable to find an engineer to build him a cow conveyer, asked a physicist. After months of work, the physicist introduced the result: "First, we assume a perfectly spherical cow in a vacuum…"

Now, this particularly function has been anonymized, but it's easy to understand what the intent was:

bool isFooOrBar() { return isFoo() && isBar(); }

The obvious problem here is the mismatch between the function name and the actual function behavior- it promises an or operation, but does an and, which the astute reader may note are different things.

I think this offers another problem, though. Even if the function name were correct, given the brevity of the body, I'd argue that it actually makes the code less clear. Maybe it's just me, but isFoo() && isBar() is more clear in its intent than isFooAndBar(). There's a cognitive overhead to adding more symbols that would make me reluctant to add such a function.

There may be an argument about code-reuse, but it's worth noting- this function is only ever called in one place.

This particular function is not itself, all that new. Tim writes:

This was committed as new code in 2010 (i.e., not a refactor). I'm not sure if the author changed their mind in the middle of writing the function or just forgot which buttons on the keyboard to press.

More likely, Tim, is that they initially wrote it as an "or" operation and then discovered that they were wrong and it needed to be an "and". Despite the fact that the function was only called in one place, they opted to change the body without changing the name, because they didn't want to "track down all the places it's used". Besides, isn't the point of a function to encapsulate the behavior?

[Advertisement] Utilize BuildMaster to release your software with confidence, at the pace your business demands. Download today!
Remy Porter

Two wrongs don’t make a copyright

7 hours 35 minutes ago
What the Dickens is going on in Germany?

Opinion  Let’s talk law and let’s talk donkey. Or. in the British vernacular, ass. In particular, let’s go back to Charles Dickens, a pungent critic of the law, who had one of his characters in Oliver Twist say of a legal assumption that “If the law supposes that, the law is a ass - a idiot.”…

Rupert Goodwins