I suspect that many of you are familiar with the term "hard coding a value" whereby the age of an individual or their location is written into the condition (or action) of a business rule (in this case) as shown below:

if customer.age > 21 and customer.city == 'denver'

then ...

Such coding practices are perfectly expectable provided that the conditional values, age and city, never change. They become entirely unacceptable if a need for different values could be anticipated. A classic example of where this practice occurred that caused considerable heartache in the IT industry was the Y2K issue where dates were updated using only the last 2 digits of a four digit number because the first 2 digits were hard-coded to 19 i.e. 1998, 1999. All was well provided that the date did not advance to a time beyond the 1900’s since no one could be certain of what would happen when the millennia arrived (2000). A considerably amount of work (albeit boring) and money, approximately $200 billion, went into revising systems by way of software rewrites and computer chip replacements in order to thwart any detrimental outcomes. It is obvious how a simple change or an assumption can have sweeping consequences.

You may wonder what Y2K has to do with Business Rule Management Systems (BRMS). Well, what if we considered rules themselves to be hard-coded. If we were to write 100s of rules in Java, .NET or whatever language that only worked for a given scenario or assumption, would that not constitute hard-coded logic? By hard-coded, we obviously mean compiled. For example, if a credit card company has a variety of bonus campaigns, each with their own unique list of rules that may change within a week’s time, what would be the most effective way of writing software to deal with these responsibilities?

Different programming languages gain popularity for different features.  Java tutorials have proven particular popular over a long period of time, thanks to a diverse group of strengths inherent to the language itself.  Let’s examine some of the basic elements of Java, and find out what it is both powerful and popular:

·         WORA – Write Once Run Anywhere is a programming ideal that has never been effectively achieved.  The goal is to be able to write code a single time, and have it deploy in the same way across multiple platforms.  Although it is still an ideal, proper Java tutorials exist that demonstrate how we are moving closer to success.

·         Object-Oriented – This programming philosophy designates that there is no coding that takes place outside established class definitions.  A large class library is also available right within the core language pack.

·         Compiler plus Interpreter – Once you have written your code, you can compile it into bytecodes which are then fed into a JVM, or Java virtual machine.  You can then follow popular Java tutorials to see how you can extensively debug your code using this functionality.

As part of our C++ Tutorials series, here is a tutorial on the tricks of the trade for using C++ I/O.  Keep in mind that an application without I/O is just a black box; no communcation is taking place. 

Tricks and Tips for using C++ I/O

The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters has been adopted by many as a model summary manual of python's philosophy.  Though these statements should be considered more as guideline and not mandatory rules, developers worldwide find the poem to be on a solid guiding ground.

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!