I’ve recently started using Netbeans for its profiler (I have some code that won’t run in 1.5G and I need to work out why) and while the profiler is vastly better than what Eclipse’s TPTP project provides and Netbeans is vastly better than it was when I first tried it 5+ years ago, there are some constant annoyances; little things that Eclipse does that I rely on all the time (non-exhaustive and in no particular order):
- highlighting all occurrences of the current element (if the cursor is on a var, method or field, then all occurrences in the file are highlighted, including markers to the right of the scrollbar so I can see where it’s used elsewhere in the file)
- toggle of comment/uncomment; netbeans has these has two separate commands (why would I ever want to comment an already commented line?)
- support for generics in completion (and smart filtering wrt completion in general) is woeful; if I have a variable s declared to be of type java.util.Set<Foo> and I type s = new then I expect completion to a) offer only (non-abstract) classes that implement the Set inteface, and b) throw in the appropriate generics stuff as well, e.g., HashSet<Foo> rather than just HashSet.
- multiple launch profiles
- junit integration
I have to agree with James, “Magic Ink: Information Software and the Graphical Interface” by Bret Victor, is an excellent essay, and a must read for anyone involved in producing any kind of software. Please do, especially if you’re responsible for sites like transinfo.qld.gov.au, yourmovies.com.au, and www3.netbank.commbank.com.au
Of course, if sites like these offered decent RESTful interfaces then anybody could work at designing a decent piece of information software.
The right one of the two is good. Spookily, I just received a letter from the ECQ indicating they think I may have done the wrong one when, unusually, I actually did the left one.
Don’t ask how I came across this, but it left me wondering if Australia had anything in the way of the “vertical cemetery”. Maybe, but it looks like Palacom only want to bury you standing up; not nearly as pretty.
I’m heading to Seoul for the ACM SAC 2007 conference, March 11-15. It should be quite interesting; besides the Model Transformation track that our paper is in, there are quite a few diverse tracks that should ensure there’s something interesting to listen to for most of the conference. Being outside the US & Europe I don’t know how many people I’ll know there (if you’re also going or you know someone who is, drop me a line) but there are some familiar names in the author lists including some former colleages and ultimate frisbee players from Melbourne.
I’m not expecting to have much time to look around, but this is a return trip (my last visit was Sept 2001 followed by a jaunt to Kyoto and returning to Brisbane on the 11th) so while I’m looking forward to returning and plenty of kimchi I’m not too bothered.
Via LtU I found a reference to First Class Relationships in an Object-oriented Language, by Gavin Bierman and Alisdair Wren, a paper published at ECOOP 2005.
This is great! I was kicking around this kind of idea with Jim before he left for his PhD in France.
I’m looking forward to a close read of it.
I just discovered the gpcg_talk mailing list and have been working through the archives.
The conclusion of the following exchange had me ROTFL
Yes, there is much belly-aching on this list about anonymous NEHTA staffers and advisers making decisions and setting policy and directions without enough consultation with stakeholders, but people forget that before NEHTA we had over a decade of anonymous health IT bureaucrats and consultants failing to make decisions and not setting policy or establishing clear directions, also mostly without consultation, but sometimes after quite extensive and expensive consultation.
Which is better?
i liked it better the other way, but i declare my interest because i was on a committee
but it was more fun when i personally assisted in not producing much that changed the world, instead of watching others appear to not do it more anonymously than we used to, and just as ineffectively (or more, but i can’t tell on available data)
Google has recently been making noises in the eHealth space.
In the latest piece there’s a link to this speech by Adam Bosworth which gives some more details. It is very exciting for me, particularly because of this passage:
Let’s put the patients in charge of their health and medical information. Let’s build a system which puts the people who are sick in control. For every single medical and health-related event, let’s make sure that patients can effortlessly retrieve and share their information in its totality and then use it to ensure that they get the best quality of care possible. It is their health. The people who treat, diagnose, test or dispense medications to patients should be required to deliver, instantly, over the net, at the speed of light, that information to those patients to use as they see fit. If these patients choose to share it with caregivers or health coaches or nursing services, that should be their right.
This is exactly what I’ve been trying to tell people ever since DSTC first got involved with HealthConnect via the South Brisbane trial and, more recently, to the people I know within NeHTA. I even wrote a rant (All I want in a Lifetime Permanent e-Health Record) on the topic a few months ago but didn’t publish it (until now) because it’s a got little too much tech in it.
I am still somewhat at a loss to understand why there isn’t more interest in such an approach from governments: it fairly neatly sidesteps a large number of privacy and trust issues, it allows for a gradual roll-out & uptake (which is a big risk-reducer), and large chunks of the project can be outsourced to (multiple, competing) 3rd parties, another risk and cost reducer.