News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by Stratoscope on Friday April 08, 2016 @11:10PM (#11459694)
My favorite is the refrigerator magnet we have on our refrigerator.

The refrigerator is where you put the refrigerator magnets, right? At least until the acid kicks in.

http://i.imgur.com/dy0ii.png

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by ayberk on Saturday April 09, 2016 @12:13PM (#11461870)
This is great! Is there a website selling these?
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by Stratoscope on Saturday April 09, 2016 @01:09PM (#11462123)
Here you go:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B015YEY7FA

It's a slightly different version of the image, but still a good one.

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by elcapitan on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:52AM (#11460271)
While most of them are well done and funny in their way, they are not actually parodies of O'Reilly, they are parodies of developer attitudes using O'Reilly cover style (similar to meme generator images).

As an O'Reilly parody I would expect something like "Official paper version of an OSS manual you can download on the project page". The Stack Overflow cover is kind of like that.

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by increment_i on Saturday April 09, 2016 @03:07AM (#11460302)
par·o·dy ˈperədē/ noun

noun: parody; plural noun: parodies

1. an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.

While splitting hairs can be fun, for all intents and purposes, I'd say this is a parody.

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by elcapitan on Saturday April 09, 2016 @03:51AM (#11460411)
Staying in that definition: My comment was that the "deliberate exaggeration" would be an exaggeration of the original, not of something else. For example, these meme generator images using movie pictures with Brad Pitt are also not parodies of Brad Pitt.

But yeah, I know that it is hair splitting. ;)

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by jwcrux on Friday April 08, 2016 @11:04PM (#11459681)
Needs "Essential Debugging with print statements"
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by coldtea on Saturday April 09, 2016 @12:42AM (#11459955)
There's nothing wrong about "debugging with print statements".

If anything, if you're any good at it, it shows better knowledge of your program's behavior than blindly looking around in the stack on a debugger.

In fact some of the biggest name programmers use just that -- including the very people who created .

At best it's "hardcore" -- but not "bad" or anything like what's in the list. Here's some appeal to coding authority for ya:

"The most effective debugging tool is still careful thought, coupled with judiciously placed print statements." Brian Kernigham

"I don't like debuggers. Never have, probably never will." — Linus Torvalds

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by JoshTriplett on Saturday April 09, 2016 @12:52AM (#11459981)
> There's nothing wrong about "debugging with print statements".

Nor is there anything wrong with searching for the text of an error message, but both are funny to see as a fake book cover.

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by jschwartzi on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:09AM (#11460163)
It's such a simple tool that it feels wrong the first time you do it.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by tdsamardzhiev on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:20AM (#11460179)
Yet it's also the only thing that actually works in a tough debugging situation.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by interfixus on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:58AM (#11460281)
Thank you so much. I shall give my guilt complex its first day off for twenty years.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by adamson on Saturday April 09, 2016 @03:18PM (#11462812)
If you want to justify it even more, you can think of it as testing invariants at various points in your program flow!
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by neves on Saturday April 09, 2016 @01:33AM (#11460092)
One of the best things of the interview book "Programmers at Work", was that all the greatest programmers used printf to debug.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by datenwolf on Saturday April 09, 2016 @08:24AM (#11460967)
The very first thing I do when starting a new project is putting the logging infrastructure in place. In production you don't want to spam stderr with each and every event. But if some operation fails the best way to understand why, is having a precise log of what chain of operations lead to this error.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by mrkgnao on Friday April 08, 2016 @11:52PM (#11459812)
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by ams6110 on Friday April 08, 2016 @11:19PM (#11459730)
Though that's often a good technique.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by BinaryIdiot on Friday April 08, 2016 @11:44PM (#11459786)
Good...or the only / expedient option?

I remember the good old days over 10 years ago debugging PHP in such a way. When I moved into .Net I thought "wow I never need a print statement again with the awesome debug tools". But leaving the comfortable embrace of Microsoft and even today I'm using print / console.log().

Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by royce on Sunday April 10, 2016 @01:01AM (#11464979)
Inside every set of debugging print statements is a debugging verbosity level trying to get out.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by mitchty on Saturday April 09, 2016 @03:59AM (#11460428)
Does pr_debug count as a print statement? Cause I use that every day.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by voltagex_ on Friday April 08, 2016 @11:58PM (#11459828)
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by azurelogic on Saturday April 09, 2016 @01:14AM (#11460040)
$35 for a t-shirt?!?! I was ready with the credit card until I saw that salty bit.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by BinaryIdiot on Friday April 08, 2016 @11:46PM (#11459791)
The amount of questions I find on StackOverflow that could have been found with a simple Google search makes me think there really is a need to read effective Googling of error messages.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by matt_wulfeck on Saturday April 09, 2016 @03:01AM (#11460290)
Often times stack overflow is the first google result for certain types of error messages, and the responses are generally useful for both fixing and understanding the problem.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by karlshea on Friday April 08, 2016 @11:32PM (#11459770)
Missing the best one: http://imgur.com/m11eiu4
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by bostik on Saturday April 09, 2016 @01:17AM (#11460047)
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by snarf on Saturday April 09, 2016 @03:50AM (#11460408)
Not programming related, but a great one: https://i.imgur.com/JRzMTR7.jpg
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by pklausler on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:22AM (#11460181)
If I only had the time, I'd make "Technical Debt: The Credit Card With No Limit".
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by failrate on Friday April 08, 2016 @11:11PM (#11459700)
I remember writing an internal white paper as a mock O'Reilly book. IIRC, my chosen animal was the badger.
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by leni536 on Saturday April 09, 2016 @02:48AM (#11460261)
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by fanf2 on Sunday April 10, 2016 @05:56AM (#11465582)
Ben Argyle started doing designs like these 16 years ago - http://www.bofhcam.org/co-larters/index.html and you can buy his t-shirts etc. from Zazzle
Re:Parody O'Reilly book covers by prisionif on Saturday April 09, 2016 @07:21AM (#11460838)
'code written by some stranger on the internet is always perfect' - AWESOME! :D