> Learning two or more major skills like TDD, design, and unit testing at the same time can create a big wall that makes things harder and more cumbersome to learn. By learning each skill separately, you make sure you’re good at each of them.
it's also that each requires higher and higher level of abstraction but you can't get up there without having gone through the intermediate, too.
kind like trying to learn calculus without having had learnt algebra
I would argue that there is a natural progression from design to unit testing to TDD. I don't see how one can start at say, TDD without knowing design or unit testing first. By the same token. One might be able to start with unit testing without knowing design, however.
these days, they've come up with 427 new ways of teaching math. Many of them are really good, but only for the kids who don't grasp it the "standard" way. unfortunately 90% get the "standard" way, but they don't seem to teach that any more so they all have to struggle. Equality
But there are many was of teaching how to do that one way. Some kids people grasp one way others grasp a different way. All this common core crap is taking one (or 50) of the alternate ways and forcing everyone to learn it that way. The normal way of teaching it has been working for decades/centuries. So many kids are struggling with math now and their parents can't begin to help them because these new ways of teaching are baffling.
It's great to use an alternate method or 20 when you've got a couple of kids who aren't grasping the concept - they'll usually get it from a different angle. But they're forcing the alternate ways on everyone and it's a pure waste of time.
Wife taught for 20 years (not math). Current US laws on not only what but how to teach are a great reason for me to mount my soap box!
Hmm. Are you saying that calculus won't give precise enough results? The way I remember it, calculus works because we basically approach a limit where it becomes small enough to actually match the shape (e.g. calculating an area bound by a line on graph).
No, what I am saying is that calculus usually is just about how to compute some area, integral, derivative or such.
There usually is also a real math version of calculus, in which you start by defining real numbers and prove a lot of things about functions starting from there.
Things like that if you have a continuously differentiable function, take the difference in value for two different points and divide by their distance, there must be a point in bewteen those two points at which the derivative equals the calculated value.
As a professor at my university once told, this is the basis for the speed control method used in the Netherlands.
Anyway, I am just making the distinction between applied calculus and math because a lot of people do not know that math is a totally different beast than they think.
Before you have a class on it at the university, you have no idea.
Even quite a lot of math students do not get the difference in the first semesters.
They still think that it is about learning the techniques to calculate different things and the results of theorems, while it is actually about the way of thinking involved in proving the theorems.
Right - I see what you mean. I did not realize until much later on that the theoreical math was more about proofs and making a statement. It was my last math class when I had a taste of what they really mean about proof and taking nothing for granted.
At least pure mathematicians are usually rather good at abstracting things. PAired with the single responsibility principle, that can work out rather well.
I suspected it would be some kind of decision tree but without a graph, it gets lost in the forest. I really wished there was a way for GitHub to generate a graph of the objects. I think Comintern mentioned CodeLen but I never got it to work. I wouldn't bother with statically graphing since code will always change and graph will be just like comments -- misleading.
That method does two things: first is uses the BindingService to get a tree of IBoundExpression objects representing the resolved expression and passes it to the BoundExpressionVisitor that generates all the identifier references.
The graph is a bit different from the grammar as it incorporates contextual information.
I thought grammar was basically the input but the declarations we get out is the output, so I thought of it as more of transforming from one tree (the grammar) to another tree (the declarations & references).
I see - then there's TypeBindingContext to resolve types rather than identifier references, and ProcedurePointerBindingContext, to resolve, uh, AddressOf {not-quite-an-expression}
that "stuff" is yet another game-changer though. we're getting closer and closer to understanding VBA code just as well as the VBE. soon we'll surpass it :)
Since my PR also introduces separate references for all default members in a recursive default member reolution, we should also be able to do the not host/control-specific part of the MakeDefaultMemberCallsExplicitQuickFix.
@M.Doerner I don't think it needs to be host-specific -- all information we need is already contained in the typelibs so we should be able to resolve it from that without needing to knowing beyond identifying the document's class.
> This PR is so far beyond the wildest dreams I ever had back when Mat and I were implementing the very first unit testing frameworks that preceded Rubberduck becoming a project, I’m completely speechless. Amazing work.
VBA Rubberducking
VBA Rubberducking