OT: Spyware...
Govinda II
infected with spyware, I'm kinda worried/mad. I have ZoneAlarm on so they
couldn't send out any info unless they had infected some *.exe I have
already let through.
All the files were for Cydoor, which KaZaA installs. But you see, I
uninstalled "all components of kazaa," or so I thought.
Two of the files were in my registry. The others were just cookies. I
don't know much about the software side of computers (*yet*), so this
question may not even make sense, but here goes.
Can a program be in my registry (like un-installed, but still 'traces' of it
in my registry) and re-install itself? If some of these spyware programs
did this, wouldn't they be crossing the line into 'virus/trojan'?
Also, since I'm into computer security mode this week for some reason, what
else should I do to make myself safer?
--
--
Jeffrey
Govinda II
BM of Leafcull
Peter Duniho
news:_XWa9.30173$iX4.9...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> All the files were for Cydoor, which KaZaA installs. But you see, I
> uninstalled "all components of kazaa," or so I thought.
>
> Two of the files were in my registry. The others were just cookies. I
> don't know much about the software side of computers (*yet*), so this
> question may not even make sense, but here goes.
If ZoneAlarm wasn't complaining about the software (and you did not enable
network access for those programs), then there probably wasn't anything to
worry about. ZA would tell you if there were some spyware trying to get
out.
When you say "two of the files were in my registry", that makes me think
that what Ad-aware found was simply registry entries for the programs,
rather than the programs themselves. The registry is simply a big database
where most of the software installed on your PC keep their settings. Simply
finding some leftover settings from spyware doesn't necessarily mean there's
a problem; it could simply be left over from spyware you had, but have since
uninstalled.
To be officially "Windows Logoed" (i.e. allowed to display the Windows logo
on their packaging and advertising), software must clean up after itself
completely, leaving no trace in the registry, or any place else, after being
uninstalled. But a) I don't really know how strict Microsoft has been
lately with their logo certfication, and b) it may be that Cydoor is not a
Windows logoed software. It wouldn't be surprising at all to find that not
all registry entries are removed when the software is uninstalled.
The only place you should be concerned about finding stuff in the registry
is under a couple of special keys, called "Run" and "RunOnce". Software
listed under these keys are being, or will be, run when Windows starts up.
Obviously, that would be of concern with respect to spyware.
As for cookies, those are even less of an issue. All a cookie is, is a file
that contains some data. Usually cookies aren't very big, and in any case,
they are like the registry in that they aren't the actual programs, but
simply a place where settings for programs can be stored. Usually the
"program" storing the setting is found in a web page; the only time the data
in the cookie would be accessed would be when you visit that page, or
another on the same web site.
In any case, unlike the minor exception to the registry, there's not any
normal way for a cookie to cause a program to execute against your will. I
can't rule out a security flaw in network-enabled software that would allow
such a thing, but so far there are no known flaws of that nature. It's
certainly not something that should be worrisome to anyone.
> Also, since I'm into computer security mode this week for some reason,
what
> else should I do to make myself safer?
If it makes you feel better, you can delete the registry entries, and the
cookies. It's unlikely that doing so is really necessary. I assume
Ad-aware would tell you if it had found the actual programs themselves;
sounds like it's just saying "hey, don't know if you knew this, but it looks
like you had some spyware installed at some point". I've never used
Ad-aware, so I don't know for sure. I do know that if all it found were the
registry entries and the cookies, that those do not in and of themselves
present a security risk.
Pete
steelsnake
> Two of the files were in my registry. The others were just cookies. I
> don't know much about the software side of computers (*yet*), so this
> question may not even make sense, but here goes.
>
> Can a program be in my registry (like un-installed, but still 'traces' of
it
> in my registry) and re-install itself? If some of these spyware programs
> did this, wouldn't they be crossing the line into 'virus/trojan'?
You can easily ignore the registry settings, usually. They're more often
than not leftovers of unclean uninstall procedures. In other words: The
program got removed, the registry key (for whatever reason) stayed.
The cookies are on a totally different level. They are used to track your
surfing behaviour, and hopefully sooner or later find out to which person,
preferrably with address and all, the profile belongs. Such cookies are
often placed by banners on webpages.
Since you're using Outlook Express for news, I guess you do use Internet
Explorer for surfing the web. There are a few things which you can do to get
rid of such cookies. For one, change the internet options -> privacy ->
advanced privacy settings to override automatic cookie handling, accept (or
prompt) first-party cookies, block third party cookies, and allow session
cookies. If you want to go a little more secure, block first party cookies
too (this will break a few webpages though).
Other than that, you could probably use some kind of anonymizing proxy. If
you have a unix (linux,bsd,os x) box anywhere nearby, just have a look at
freshmeat.net - if it's windows, I'd recommend webwasher.
Another hint is specific to Outlook Express. I am not sure that this is
doable with Zonealarm though: Only allow Outlook Express to connect to your
mail server, and nowhere else. If you only have POP3 mail accounts, just
allow port 25 and 110 and block everything else. If you use webmail services
like hotmail or yahoo, you have to allow connections to them, too. This will
get rid of the rather annoying banners that are in some mailinglists. It
also makes it harder for people to use "webbugs" on you to find out if you
read some mails.
If you need more information, just drop me a mail privately to ssnake at ing
. twinwave . net
Jens
Govinda II
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:eXpSAYlTCHA.1952@tkmsftngp09...
> The registry is simply a big database where most of the software installed
on your PC keep their settings.
I didn't know that. I really do need to start reading up on how computers
work. I took an A+ certification driven class in high school last year, but
it was only the hardware side of computers, and the computers we worked on
were not very up-to-date. It was very interesting to learn about the
different parts of a computer. I wish we could have actually learn more
about processors than what a 'ZIF' connector was. Would be sweet to learn
the actual make up of a processor.
I also wish that I could have taken the software side of the class as well.
I want to learn more about how an operating system works or as a matter of
fact, how any program works. Guess that's why I'm majoring in computer
science. One reason I have been coming here with my 2 latest OT posts is 1)
b/c it is habit to come here, heh, and 2) b/c so many of you here are
programmers.
I started playing the guitar 2 years ago, with little direction besides
'this is a C, D, etc.' I really suffer from it as well. I really don't
want to be a sub-par programmer b/c I went into this the incorrect way. And
I don't want to look back at this in 4-5 years and say, "I wish I had
learned it this way."
So I guess I'm asking you all here, how should I go into this? Will a state
university (UNC Charlotte) computer science course load teach me the basics?
or what? What kind of resources do you recommend I read? I am pretty
interested in networking security (I think, since if I find an article about
some hack getting though somewhere, I like to read it and find out just what
the bug was). Internet would be the best, since my funds for buying books
are already gone and I still don't have my JAVA book yet.
Any Hind-Sight (r) hints from you all are appreciated.
Steve Pearsall
"Govinda II" <Bond...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_XWa9.30173$iX4.9...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Adaware is a great program - just keep it up to date and run it once a week
or so and it should take care of any spyware that gets installed on your
system.
Perhaps the most common trick spyware uses to get installed on your system
and send its reports back home is to piggy back on some other program.
Often times whey you see a "free" program like a download accelerator, or a
picture editor and many free games have spyware attached to them too. When
you give such a program access to the net in ZA you are also giving the
spyware that access too.
I was tricked into installing some spyware recently from a game I purchased
in a store. It was a bargain bin Pinball game. Fortunately, Ad Aware
caught the spyware. After I uninstalled the spyware part of the game (using
Adaware) the rest of the game wouldn't run and when I tried to use it it put
up an error message saying that there were missing components and that it
needed to re-install itself. The spyware was the well know radiate system.
The name of the company that made the game was egames and it turns out they
bury spyware in all of the games they sell. Avoid them like the plague.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002
Govinda II
news:477b9.216458$983.428254@rwcrnsc53...
> I was tricked into installing some spyware recently from a game I
purchased
> in a store. It was a bargain bin Pinball game. Fortunately, Ad Aware
> caught the spyware. After I uninstalled the spyware part of the game
(using
> Adaware) the rest of the game wouldn't run and when I tried to use it it
put
> up an error message saying that there were missing components and that it
> needed to re-install itself. The spyware was the well know radiate
system.
Now I read on the Ad-aware site that they could not tell you what parts to
remove, or it would be illegal (guess that is editing another persons
software, right?). What version do you have? Also, I have not actually
found a program yet. Does it give you a larger warning when it finds a
program/part of a program?
> The name of the company that made the game was egames and it turns out
they
> bury spyware in all of the games they sell. Avoid them like the plague.
Will do.
Dave
http://www.housecall.antivirus.com
Govinda II <Bond...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_XWa9.30173$iX4.9...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Steve Pearsall
> Now I read on the Ad-aware site that they could not tell you what parts to
> remove, or it would be illegal (guess that is editing another persons
> software, right?). What version do you have? Also, I have not actually
> found a program yet. Does it give you a larger warning when it finds a
> program/part of a program?
>
> > The name of the company that made the game was egames and it turns out
> they
> > bury spyware in all of the games they sell. Avoid them like the plague.
>
> Will do.
>
> --
> --
> Jeffrey
> Govinda II
> BM of Leafcull
>
>
think I started with version 2.0. The spyware removal process is automatic.
When you start up Ad Aware it scans your system, (memory, registry, and hard
drives) for spyware contained in its signature file (the signature file is a
data file which can be updated independently of the main program). Once it
is finished scanning it displays a list of spyware it has found (including
cookies) with a checkbox next to each entry. You can click on each checkbox
or click on the select all button and then click on the continue or backup
button. If you make a backup you can restore the removed components later
on. That's all there is to it.
Peter Duniho
> So I guess I'm asking you all here, how should I go into this? Will a
state
> university (UNC Charlotte) computer science course load teach me the
basics?
> or what?
Yes, and no.
Unfortunately, the quality of the education you get in a programming class
will depend *greatly* on the teacher. There are too many people teaching
programming who are doing simply because they aren't good enough programmers
to do well in the industry.
There are some excellent teachers out there, who are both great programmers
and also fantastic teachers. But they are definitely in the minority. You
would do well to talk to people who have been through the classes already,
and try as hard as you can to schedule your classes with the professors with
good reputations.
At the core, programming is a bit of art and a bit of engineering. IMHO,
it's more art than engineering, but it's got a healthy dose of both, and
there are some very good engineers who don't appreciate the art as much and
who still do a good job. So who am I to say? :)
Anyway, I suppose a university course series is as good a place as any to
start. Just keep in mind that they are, for the most part, just there to
fill your head with facts. To be a really good programmer, you need to take
it upon yourself to apply those facts in an appropriate manner. (This is
true of practically every form of education, by the way...it just bears
repeating as often as possible).
Likewise, there are certainly some good books out there on programming, but
they won't necessarily tell you how to be a good programmer. They will just
tell you how to do certain things in a computer program.
With respect to the application of the facts in an appropriate manner, I'll
point out one of the biggest problems with most programmers today. They
don't *design* so much as they write a bunch of code, hoping it will work,
and then write a bunch more, until it eventually seems to.
If you were building a motorcycle (for example) the way most programmers
write code, you'd wind up with something that has two large wheels, but not
aligned with each other, with one or more little ones to keep the bike
upright. It'd have anywhere between one and four cylinders in the engine,
but one or more of those cylinders would have a bunch of duct tape and
little metal shims and other pieces to correct the imperfections found
inside and outside the cylinders.
The distributor would have been located in the primary fuel tank; the first
time the tank blew up due to the spark, another fuel tank would have been
added but the original tank would still be there, tempting fate. The seat
would be facing backwards, but the builder would simply install some gauges
on the sissy bar and call it a feature. The throttle, clutch, and brakes
would all be in some other position than how every other motorcycle has
them, but all of the marketing material would promise "once you've learned
to ride our bike, you'll never want to ride another" (which would be true,
in a misleading way :) ).
If you want to be a good programmer, don't be that way. :)
First of all, design things in small, manageable pieces. Make sure each
piece works as you expect before you put the pieces together. Secondly,
think about what pieces you'll actually need before you start writing the
program. If the program is reasonably large, write all this down. Use it
as a guide when you program. You don't necessarily need to do a flowchart;
they can be helpful, but they are no panacea, and sometimes they just hide
the real problems that need to be solved. But having some sort of "roadmap"
document is always helpful. And finally, never be afraid to throw out
everything you've done so far and start over. Even if you think hard about
the right way to do something ahead of time, it's possible to get in the
middle of things and realize that there's a better way. Don't hesitate to
do things the better way.
The most important suggestion is to program as much as possible. Only by
doing will you really start to internalize the things people may try to
teach you. As with everything else, "practice makes perfect" applies here.
If you limit your programming to simply the projects assigned to you in
class, you'll be a mediocre programmer at best.
As for specializing, it's a little early for you to be thinking too much
about that. Things like networking security, for example. You can
understand many aspects from a high level, such as network configuration,
firewalls, proxy servers, that sort thing. But that's a whole learning
process in and of itself. With respect to the underlying programming issues
(and not all network security issues have anything to do at all with
programming), you'll want to learn the basics first before trying to swim in
the deep end. Even something as seemingly simple as a "buffer overrun" flaw
cannot really be understood with any detail until you understand in great
detail how a CPU deals with program flow. All of these things will come in
time; focus on the fundamentals first.
It sounds like you are just starting your college courses. I'm sure if you
stay focused (partying is great, but don't let it get in the way of your
classwork), and keep your head in the game, you'll do fine. I'll wrap up by
restating in different words what I was talking about earlier in this post:
you should be striving to be proud of your program, not just because it does
what you wanted it to, but because of how elegantly written it is. It's
true that most (if not all) people will never get to appreciate the beauty
of the program, not directly, but it will be found in the efficiency and
robustness (i.e. lack of bugs) demonstrated by the program. They won't know
that they are appreciating the art, but they will be.
Pete
Govinda II
"Peter Duniho" <NpOeS...@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
> "Govinda II" <Bond...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:h%6b9.31386$iX4.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > So I guess I'm asking you all here, how should I go into this? Will a
> state
> > university (UNC Charlotte) computer science course load teach me the
> basics?
> > or what?
>
> Yes, and no.
>
> Unfortunately, the quality of the education you get in a programming class
> will depend *greatly* on the teacher. There are too many people teaching
> programming who are doing simply because they aren't good enough
programmers
> to do well in the industry.
Great to hear! lol. I have already run into problems with professors who
know their stuff, but don't have the slightest idea how to convey it in a
way that anyone in their class can understand it. I had calculus last year
in high school, and am taking calc 2 now in my first semester. It is a
review still, but my calc teacher is making things alot harder by making me
come to class and listen to him confuse everyone, heh.
> There are some excellent teachers out there, who are both great
programmers
> and also fantastic teachers. But they are definitely in the minority.
You
> would do well to talk to people who have been through the classes already,
> and try as hard as you can to schedule your classes with the professors
with
> good reputations.
Great, I have to go meet more people. What is up with having to socialize
with people IRL? And why does no one get out of my way when I hold up my
*tapfoot* sign when in line at the bookstore? AC made things so much
easier. ;-)
But for real, I guess I will need to get to know some higher year computer
science people to get a little professor info.
> At the core, programming...<Snip> ...computer program.
>
> With respect to the application of the facts in an appropriate manner,
I'll
> point out one of the biggest problems with most programmers today. They
> don't *design* so much as they write a bunch of code, hoping it will work,
> and then write a bunch more, until it eventually seems to.
Yes, I'm just starting out as a freshman, everything is all bright and new,
heh. With this you mean don't write 50 lines when 20 will do it? I still
have a few weeks before we even get into any computer language at all (which
will be JAVA), so I guess I'll get to test my designing abilities then.
> If you were building a motorcycle (for example)... <Snip> ...would promise
"once you've learned
> to ride our bike, you'll never want to ride another" (which would be true,
> in a misleading way :) ).
>
> If you want to be a good programmer, don't be that way. :)
Lol, I think my dad actually had a motorcycle like that at once (he loves
fixer-up-ers). By the "keep default things the same" statement, I guess you
mean try to follow some basic standards when designing my programs. I
agree. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But when do I know my next new
idea won't become standard? heh.
> First of all, design things in small, manageable pieces. Make sure each
> piece works as you expect before you put the pieces together. Secondly,
> think about what pieces you'll actually need before you start writing the
> program. If the program is reasonably large, write all this down. Use it
> as a guide when you program. You don't necessarily need to do a
flowchart;
> they can be helpful, but they are no panacea, and sometimes they just hide
> the real problems that need to be solved. But having some sort of
"roadmap"
> document is always helpful. And finally, never be afraid to throw out
> everything you've done so far and start over. Even if you think hard
about
> the right way to do something ahead of time, it's possible to get in the
> middle of things and realize that there's a better way. Don't hesitate to
> do things the better way.
I am an organization kind of person. I can make a to do list from hell
sometimes, heh. My only problem that I foresee in myself is my character
flaw of procrastination (such as now, when I'm on here and NOT doing my
homework, lol). I need to just grow up now and force myself to actually do
the things that need to be done. I can bet money that my professors could
careless what work I turn in, because they get paid no matter what.
Completely restarting a project for the first time is going to hit me hard,
because more than likely, I'll see the best way to rewrite my program, the
day before it is due, blah.
> The most important suggestion is to program as much as possible. Only by
> doing will you really start to internalize the things people may try to
> teach you. As with everything else, "practice makes perfect" applies
here.
> If you limit your programming to simply the projects assigned to you in
> class, you'll be a mediocre programmer at best.
So make your job your life? Program at work, and then come home to finish up
work, and then work on your third party programs? heh. I just hope I don't
get burnt out of programming, which I have heard a few people speak of.
> As for specializing, it's a little early... <Snip> ...focus on the
fundamentals first.
>
> It sounds like you are just starting your college courses. I'm sure if
you
> stay focused (partying is great, but don't let it get in the way of your
> classwork), and keep your head in the game, you'll do fine. I'll wrap up
by
> restating in different words what I was talking about earlier in this
post:
> you should be striving to be proud of your program, not just because it
does
> what you wanted it to, but because of how elegantly written it is. It's
> true that most (if not all) people will never get to appreciate the beauty
> of the program, not directly, but it will be found in the efficiency and
> robustness (i.e. lack of bugs) demonstrated by the program. They won't
know
> that they are appreciating the art, but they will be.
Oh absolutely. The first time I correctly run "Hello World," I'll more than
likely scream! I remember my first crappy website I made with geoBuilder.
Total crap, but was a beauty to me. When I write a complete program, dear
god, I might have a hard time letting it go.
> Pete
Thank you very much Pete for your reply.
Peter Duniho
> But for real, I guess I will need to get to know some higher year computer
> science people to get a little professor info.
Yup. Sorry about that. Socialization is a bitch. :)
Seriously though, there should be ample opportunity to get to know people
who know. I'm guessing that UNC Charlotte has an ACM chapter, and that
would be one of the primary starting points for getting to know the computer
science crowd. I don't know if the CS department has any sort of freshman
orientation, but that's another good way. Hanging around the computer lab
is pretty geeky, but not a bad way to get to know people either. :)
You might even think about attending a CS department graduation. Probably
there's one at the end of the year for the mid-year grads. Be bold...walk
right up to someone you've never met before, who has just gotten their
diploma (so you'll probably never meet them again :) ), and ask them "who
was your favorite CS professor?" Also ask them "who was your *least*
favorite CS professor". Do that a bunch of times, you'll start to get a
read. :)
> Yes, I'm just starting out as a freshman, everything is all bright and
new,
> heh. With this you mean don't write 50 lines when 20 will do it?
Basically, yes. It's also a matter of writing the right 20 lines, but the
bottom line is, in programming, as with mathematical proofs, less is more.
> Lol, I think my dad actually had a motorcycle like that at once (he loves
> fixer-up-ers). By the "keep default things the same" statement, I guess
you
> mean try to follow some basic standards when designing my programs. I
> agree. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But when do I know my next new
> idea won't become standard? heh.
Part of the art of UI design is knowing when the current standards are "good
enough". Nothing wrong with a wonderful, revolutionary brand-new user
interface. But it had better really make a difference to the user. :)
Too often, the user interface for a program is simply a hideous, frightening
glimpse into the psyche of the programmer.
> I am an organization kind of person. I can make a to do list from hell
> sometimes, heh. My only problem that I foresee in myself is my character
> flaw of procrastination (such as now, when I'm on here and NOT doing my
> homework, lol).
I can relate. One of my biggest problems as a programmer is that it is the
problem-solving that I really love. Once I have figured out how to write a
program, or certain part of a program, I have very little motivation to
actually *type* in the code. I would much rather jump forward to the next
"unsolveable" problem, than to implement the solution I've just come up with
for the previous unsolveable problem.
> Completely restarting a project for the first time is going to hit me
hard,
> because more than likely, I'll see the best way to rewrite my program, the
> day before it is due, blah.
Could be. Of course, there's also a such thing as prioritizing. Not being
afraid to start all over isn't the same as setting yourself up for disaster.
:)
> So make your job your life? Program at work, and then come home to finish
up
> work, and then work on your third party programs? heh. I just hope I
don't
> get burnt out of programming, which I have heard a few people speak of.
I didn't get burned out on programming until I did it for a very large
corporation. Since leaving that environment, I have found that I have every
bit of passion for programming as I did before. IMHO, I've done some of my
best "work" since then. The burn-out happens mostly from being forced to do
stuff you don't want to do, rather than from simply doing too much
programming.
> Oh absolutely. The first time I correctly run "Hello World," I'll more
than
> likely scream!
Sounds like you have the right attitude. :) Passion, in whatever one does,
is the first step to mastery. The thrill you are talking about is,
unfortunately, unknown to far too many programmers. Having that thrill, you
are privy to something that most of the industry is not. Cherish that!
> Thank you very much Pete for your reply.
You're more than welcome. It's all too infrequent that I have the
opportunity to brai^H^H^H^Hprovide helpful advice to budding programmers.
;) I'm thankful for the opportunity.
Pete
Justin H.
>
> Yup. Sorry about that. Socialization is a bitch. :)
It's not fair. What happened to the land of small concrete rooms,
filled with blinking lights, glowing screens, empty pizza boxes, and
programmers with that healthy yellow glow (green for the *real* old
timers)?! Kids just don't know what they're missing! Actually, I find
it sad that so many of the "kids" these days think that social
interaction == IRC. Bleh.
> Basically, yes. It's also a matter of writing the right 20 lines, but the
> bottom line is, in programming, as with mathematical proofs, less is more.
One of my teachers way back when used to ask us, "What does that line
do? Nothing? Good. Get rid of it." I learned a lot from that!
> Too often, the user interface for a program is simply a hideous, frightening
> glimpse into the psyche of the programmer.
Or the current craze of "skinnable" interfaces. There's some incredibly
twisted people out there. I suppose it just goes to show that you can
get used to anything.
> I can relate. One of my biggest problems as a programmer is that it is the
> problem-solving that I really love. Once I have figured out how to write a
> program, or certain part of a program, I have very little motivation to
> actually *type* in the code. I would much rather jump forward to the next
> "unsolveable" problem, than to implement the solution I've just come up with
> for the previous unsolveable problem.
Problem solving? I thought it was called debugging.
> You're more than welcome. It's all too infrequent that I have the
> opportunity to brai^H^H^H^Hprovide helpful advice to budding programmers.
> ;) I'm thankful for the opportunity.
?!? Did you change your address??! I wonder who's been getting all
the..."students" I've been sending you then?
Inyidd
Peter Duniho
news:3D6DAB1C...@dogday.net...
> Problem solving? I thought it was called debugging.
I realize you're just joking, but your comment is a nice highlight of what
I'm talking about. Too often, the code is written as quickly as possible,
and most of the "design" is simply a result of fixing "bugs" (i.e. places
where the code doesn't do what it's supposed to, usually as a result of the
code not being well-thought-out in the first place).
It's the worst way to program, and the most common. It's no wonder that
software is so universally awful.
> ?!? Did you change your address??! I wonder who's been getting all
> the..."students" I've been sending you then?
Those were students? You should've sent them with a proper note. I just
sent them out to the yard to do the weeding. I've already lost several, due
to the man-eating blackberry bushes; I thought they were expendable.
Pete
Justin H.
>
> "Justin H." <pic...@dogday.net> wrote in message
> news:3D6DAB1C...@dogday.net...
> > Problem solving? I thought it was called debugging.
>
> I realize you're just joking, but your comment is a nice highlight of what
> I'm talking about. Too often, the code is written as quickly as possible,
> and most of the "design" is simply a result of fixing "bugs" (i.e. places
> where the code doesn't do what it's supposed to, usually as a result of the
> code not being well-thought-out in the first place).
>
> It's the worst way to program, and the most common. It's no wonder that
> software is so universally awful.
Well, there are two ways that I've learned to program. The first way
involves a teacher and a student, has design time (pencil and paper -
how often do you see *that* anymore!), goal writing, initial runs,
debugging, testing, etc... This is the way I prefer to do things.
The second way is learning on my own with improper, incomplete, or just
plain wrong documentation, and the debugging is a result of having to
learn things inside out. This is the way I usually end up having to
learn things.
Inyidd
Rexx Magnus
microsoft.public.games.zone.asherons_call writing in message
news:3D6E29DC...@dogday.net
> Well, there are two ways that I've learned to program. The first way
> involves a teacher and a student, has design time (pencil and paper -
> how often do you see *that* anymore!), goal writing, initial runs,
> debugging, testing, etc... This is the way I prefer to do things.
>
Same here. If I'm working on something that requires a specific order for
things to happen in, say for example, checking email, working out if any
needs to be picked up, then parsing it - I'll work out a basic flow diagram,
otherwise I'll confuse myself. On other occasions, if it's a simpler task
that doesn't require a lot of conditional actions, I'll just go ahead and
write it. Often a lot of debugging is required when I didn't think about
variable types properly.
> The second way is learning on my own with improper, incomplete, or just
> plain wrong documentation, and the debugging is a result of having to
> learn things inside out. This is the way I usually end up having to
> learn things.
This is usually the way I learn a new language, not working out the basics
first, but having a target, then learning how to do what I want with what is
there. That's my mode of attack at the moment whilst learning Java.
--
I have a catapult. Give me all the money,
or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.
AC Herbal - http://www.rexx.co.uk/herbal
To email me change the domain to the above.
Peter Duniho
> The second way is learning on my own with improper, incomplete, or just
> plain wrong documentation, and the debugging is a result of having to
> learn things inside out.
With "improper, incomplete, or just plain wrong documentation", you're
talking about programming to a specific API. Frankly, not understanding the
API is the least of the problem in software. The vast majority of bugs
exist as genuine flaws in the programmer's code, not as a problem
interacting with the API.
Pete
Justin H.
Yes, exactly. That's what I've been doing for the most part - at least,
for the last 10 years or so, in various ways.
There was a version of LISP by AutoDesk (EdLin....gah!), TCL from within
various applications, a C style scripting language used by a program for
changing UI and parsing incoming text, and a few others. Really I'm
talking about scripting more so than an actual programming language, but
the underlying theory pretty much remains the same, you just have to
worry about buggy interpreters. Bleh.
Inyidd
--
Nyarlathotep casts a spell.