In a world now enthralled with social media, the former requires no explanation for it seems to be a continuous part of modern existence. The later seems more remarkable to me perhaps because of its apparent mundaneness.

Supporting the local library lead me to meet THE James Fahey and though breakfasts he promoted lead eventually to John’s exciting world of music. John and Spotify have both made the world a much more interesting place for me and I wish to put them at the top of my most intriguing music discoveries for 2011.

Thank you gentlemen for opening new worlds!

static inline CGPoint
ccpAdd(const CGPoint v1, const CGPoint v2)
{
return ccp(v1.x + v2.x, v1.y + v2.y);
}

Suggests efficient coding, but I would next want to ask how this translates (compiles?)into machine code.

Anyway the point is to check what the other guy is doing rather then simply assuming goodness. ^_^

So why should yours be any different? ^_^

This blog entry does raise the interesting question of code efficiency. Clearly the code is now easy to read, but how efficient is it? (Not to say that your original was necessarily better.)

When ever code is reused (be it libraries, classes, or what have you) the programmer is establishing a trust relationship with another person that 1) they did the “right thing” and 2) that there are no unintended consequences stemming from that use.

By having initially attempted to write the code yourself you now have some idea of the potential pitfalls and trade offs involved with the design of the borrowed routine.

Maybe this is just me being old school, but my experience tells me that if you don’t have a good understanding of the underlying software structure your results will often be inferior.

For crazy eddie testing we use automated model based testing: http://graphwalker.org/

I agree the hackers make misuse an artform. I’m going to digest that one…

Being creative means not limiting oneself to a particular dogma.

If you have read Mote in God’s Eye then you will know what I mean by Crazy Eddie testing. Users always do the unexpected, so should developers as well as testers.

Hackers make an art out of (mis)using tools in ways they were not intended. Dog food can also be used pointing bricks, catching catfish, and is a passable (if somewhat odoriferous) library paste in a pinch.

All institutionalized methods become stale if they become so routine that people forget to think for themselves.

What you call “plagiarism” is really a form stepwise refinement. Taking existing ideas, combining them together and/or giving them a new twist is an old, old, recipe for success.

So keep thinking, you’re getting warm!