>>6
I loled. I wouldn't want to write a program on paper even if my ass burnt. Pseudocode... I do that on design, and when I need to think of a fairly complex algorithm, to do it from a top-down perspective, and I progressively replace a copy of it by actual code in the program. Of course, I usually write it in a pseudolanguage similar to what I'm going to replace it with.
As for truth tables, I dream in logic, why would I need any. Electronic engineering and optimization like Karnaugh's are a different matter, but I haven't ever needed them in years of programming home and work high and low level.
>>15
Agreed and sharing your experience. I guess UML was adopted by the industry(*) because it ends in ML, and anything that ends in ML, like HTML, XML, etc. is good.
UML is just an industry standard waste of time. With it, you can produce a half-assed, yet self-righteous design (as well as industry standard™) for bloatware. Implement it in Java, and you're done.
(*): And almost anywhere the word "industry" appears to justify something standard it's bad news because either it sucks, it's expensive as hell, or both.
In early system design and early program design stages, I used something that resembled a part of UML, mostly for documentation though. And in any case, it's the tool what you need to adapt to your problem, not your problem to the tool! Never follow methodologies. They suck. In fact, do you know what's the difference between a terrorist and an object methodologist? You can negotiate with the terrorist.
>>19
Never. Or I risk god killing kittens, and boss firing me for wasting my time ^_^.
>>23
Wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to do that OO? But OO is "industry standard", so we have to cope with that even if it's just nice for a few common cases and a pain in the ass for everything else, including maintenance.
>>25
Actually, I use C... with pseudofunctions, of course.
>>26
I guess it's a matter of taste, but (do (you) (really like (((Lisp)'s) syntax))) ?