Another New, Exciting Blog

Same bland author.

Same bland content.

A WHOLE-NEW bland theme.

It's my new blog! Faithful readers, please visit my new blog at PhilJerkins.WordPress.com. This BlogSpot blog has served me well, hosting the blur of new posts and the infrastructure-exhausting traffic for many, many years. But I must bid BlogSpot goodbye.

Later!

Phil Jerkins

Three Books about One Bible

I've come to realize now that my study of the Bible has entered a new phase. And facilitating that transition have been three books.

Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology was the first of the three books that I was introduced to. There is a men's group at our church that has been going through this tome for the past year. We're expecting to finish it by this summer.

It's an exhausting read. But, while I may not agree with Mr. Grudem on every point, I certainly agree with his approach: begin with Scripture, continue with Scripture, and end with Scripture. While he definitely has an opinion on controversial topics, he presents both sides fairly, including for all sides of the debate both supporting and difficult passages in Scripture. Never have I seen so many Bible references on one page, and that's true of all of the 1500 or so pages in this great work. It may sound like a huge book, and it is. But because of the number of subjects covered, it is actually a very dense book, full of logical analysis, historical background, and references primarily to the Bible, but also to theological works by other authors.

Kay Arthur's Lord, Teach Me to Study the Bible in 28 Days is an awesome approach to studying the Bible on your own. It's not a read-it-in-one-year program, or a Pentateuch, Proverbs, Prophets, Gospel, and Epistle-a-day program. Rather, it's a discipline-based approach that lets you choose what you read, and help the text speak for itself. Ms. Arthur uses a couple passages to walk readers through the disciplines that comprise her method. Writing a structure of each chapter, underlining key people/places/concepts in each chapter, and listing in a journal what the text says about each are examples of the disciplines Ms. Arthur teaches.

What's most interesting is that, while the book can be used as a daily Bible study for the time you spend reading it, Ms. Arthur does not violate her own principles. She takes great pains to let readers discover the passages on their own, rather than giving her impressions.

Her goal is twofold: help untrained laypeople study the Bible in an organized manner, and leave their Bible marked and highlighted in such a way as to be a good reference for sermons or future study.

The NIV Application Commentary for Hebrews is an eye-opening book for me. For one, it's my first Bible commentary, and therefore is my first experience with a commentary to supplement my own study. However, it was recommended by my pastor because of the application notes it contains. The commentary has a separate "chapter" for every passage in Hebrews. (The passages covered are usually quite short; the first one I read was on Hebrews 7:1-4.) Each chapter is divided into three sections:

Original Meaning
A traditional commentary, this section discusses the meaning of the text at-hand.

Bridging Contexts
To quote the Series Introduction: "This section builds a bridge between the world of the Bible and the world of today...by focusing on both the timely and timeless aspects of the text."

Contemporary Significance
Here the authors and editors mention specific circumstances in which the passage could be applicable.

I freely admit that this is my first experience with commentaries, a tool that's both popular and, for some, an everyday staple. But for me, this commentary struck a resonant chord with my study of Scripture and my desire for a more educated perspective.

These three books are, together, accelerating my study of the Bible and my understanding of God, His character, and His plan for us. I highly recommend them, and I hope that you will investigate them to help you in your studies.

OnStar vs. Cellphone

The commercial shown above implies that your cellphone may not be available in a crash. That is certainly true.

However, OnStar may also not be available. I quote a footnote from OnStar.com's own page about the Automatic Crash Response feature:

OnStar services require vehicle electrical system (including battery), wireless service, and GPS satellite signals to be available and operating for features to function properly.

While watching this commercial on TV tonight, it struck me (no pun intended) that the cellphone, while it did bounce off the front of the vehicle and fly into the back seat, at least it didn't crumple-up as the car did. And what's located in the very front of almost every car? The battery.

So I wonder how many severe crashes - the very kind for which you'd pay for a service like OnStar - occur without OnStar's operators even knowing about it? I wonder if OnStar offers a battery backup solution for the Automatic Crash Response feature? And I wonder, if my cellphone is in its usual place - my pocket - would it fly around as the commercial shows?

Just a thought.

Bad times for Microsoft?

Their software patent portfolio is now worthless:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/24/1713259

And businesses – for years, the crucial core stronghold for Windows’ popularity – are now realizing that upgrades are not a foregone conclusion:
http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/12/01/0317244.shtml

I'd like to hear opinions from all three of my readers on this one.

Tale of Two Technologies

My church needs software to replace time-consuming paper-based process. I volunteered to do it. My thought was I'd do it in .NET 3.5 both to learn the technology, try to follow best practices, and get something for the resume in the process. According to my source control logs, I started on Sept. 8th.

This past Monday (Oct. 6th), I realized I had spent around a month on what should have been a fairly simple three-table CRUD+workflow app, and still wasn't done yet. So I decided to revisit Ruby on Rails, just to see how much I could get done, and how quickly.

After spending Monday and Tuesday reviewing Rails, I started a Rails version of the church software on Wednesday (Oct. 8th). Four days later, I've already passed where I was in .NET.

Now, it's true that I haven't written ANY unit tests yet (I'll probably write my first tests tonight). EVERYTHING in the .NET project is unit-tested. But still. Here's a list of the feature comparison between the two projects:

Feature	.NET	RoR
Login	X	X
CRUD for people	X	X
CRUD for events	-	X
Enforcement of permissions dependency rules	X	-
Enforcement of security on People	Model	UI
Enforcement of security on Events	-	Working on UI
Global search bar for searching membership	-	X

I enjoy writing in .NET, but my productivity in Rails the last week has my jaw on the floor.

Proof of the Revolutionary No-Scar Surgical Technique

Now that my hand is liberated from the soft cast that held it hostage for two weeks, I thought I'd answer my sweet wife's post about the Revolutionary No-Scar Surgical Technique.

I firmly believe that a picture is worth a thousand words. As it still hurts to type too much, that's a good deal for today:


Here's a close-up:


This picture CLEARLY illustrates that no scarring is visible. For those who believe this to be just a trick of lighting, I provide the following false-color image showing the smooth topography of my incision site:


And there you have it! Proof positive of the Revolutionary No-Scar Surgical Technique!

Yet Another Post-of-the-Day

I just saw that my last post was on September 29th.

It's obviously been a while since my brain's been full.

Hmmm...

Home Page

Well, I've been in the IT industry for 10 years. Writing web applications the whole time, with Microsoft software.

Well, I finally have a personal web server, and it's running Linux (and C# via Mono):

http://TheJerkins.HomeDNS.org

Enjoy!

Best iPhone review yet

(After visiting an Apple store yesterday, Carrie wondered out loud if she'd be hearing about the iPhone non-stop until we got ours. I confirmed her fears.)

This is surely the best iPhone review I've seen yet. A very well-done (and quite funny) review of the iPhone. Nothing is revealed that you haven't seen everywhere else. But the slapstick feel to the review makes it worth watching again and again. Thanks to iPhoneTower for posting the review where I'd find it.

Enjoy!

iPod touch vs. iPhone after 20 minutes

Ok, ok. Carrie and I visited an Apple store today to see the iPod touch and the iPhone.

We're locked in a contract with Sprint, which in my mind had put the iPhone out-of-reach. And since the iPod touch is supposedly an iPhone with out the phone, I thought I wouldn't be giving up all that much.

WRONG! Apple seriously crippled the iPod touch! I suspect the reason for each feature cut was a demand made by AT&T that couldn't be overruled by Apple. Here's what I found:

	iPhone	iPod touch
Safari	Yes	Yes
YouTube	Yes	Yes
Calendar	View/Edit/Add	View only
Mail	Yes	NO
Weather	Yes	NO
Notes	Yes	NO
SMS	Yes	n/a
Phone	Yes	n/a
iTunes WiFi	Coming	Yes

Boy was I bummed! The iPod touch is definitely NOT an iPhone without just the phone! The inability to enter calendar appointments is a big loss to me - it keeps the iPod touch just a tease away from being a true PDA. My memory is AWFUL, and entering reminders as I think of them is an essential feature. Looking at that calendar link on the home page would just be a splinter in my mind, reminding me that I have a second-rate device.

So Carrie and I are scheming a way to get iPhones in a few months.

2007-09-16 Update: I found this much more comprehensive comparison of iPhone and iPod touch. Looks like there was more missing than I noticed.

iPhone Whiners - Part 2

A good friend of mine left a comment on my last post implying I had cried many a sympathetic tear for those early adopters that Apple cheated. This post is intended to clear the air on that. (This may sound like it contradicts my last post; it doesn't. But I'll explain that in a minute.)

Even as I wrote that last post I was still thinking about what kind of person would immediately buy a high-priced bit of technology the day it comes out, then publicly whine when it gets outdated/cheaper/old.

This is technology, people. The price/features curve (or price/performance, in terms of computers) is moving all the time. People know that living on the high-features end of the curve costs considerably more than living on the low-price end. For me, it's a matter of finding where on that curve you can comfortably stay.

My cellphones are almost always the free kind. My iPod is still an iPod Mini (bought just after they came out in early 2004). My computers are never cutting-edge hardware. (I made an exception when we bought our MacBook this year. Watching it get outdated a couple months later did not even phase me, and we have no plans to replace it. It's our first laptop, and we're still thrilled.)

I grew up with a friend who ALWAYS had the latest stuff. He had the money to buy it, so I never begrudged his purchases. And he taught me the valuable lesson on how to be content with yesterday's stuff.

I am a computer programmer by trade. Computers are what I use day-in, day-out. Of course I'd prefer a dual Core2Quad with 8GB of RAM and a RAID-5 array. Of course I'd prefer a 17" MacBook Pro fully-loaded. Of course I'd prefer the iPhone 8GB with a maxed-out service plan. But my kids would be hunting their own dinner instead of playing in their sandbox during the day.

So when I read that some "early-adopters" are whining because their new toy just became cheaper, I marvel at their lack of character. Did they think that buying an iPhone in its first two months of availability was a wise investment decision? Did they expect the iPhone to remain at the same price/features point indefinitely? Have they purchased any other smartphone (or computer or other gadget) the day it came out, then cried when it became cheaper or outdated?

The only entity showing good character here is Apple. Though doubtless they had the same thoughts I did, they nonetheless responded by offering those whiners half of the difference in store credit. I have no illusions that this response was necessary. It wasn't, and I think Apple surprised many by being this generous. But Apple loves its customers, as it always has, and its customers generally love it back.

Now, on contradicting my last post: My last post was a counter-point to the PCWorld.com article I linked to. I think they misunderstood what was in the minds of those whiners when they whined. I do not, however, have any sympathy for the whiners, even though I believe I know what they were thinking.

And finally, full-disclosure: The iPhone was out of my price range when it was released. I admired the technology, and drooled like many other middle-class men boys at another gadget desired, but out-of-reach. Now, however, the iPhone is more accessible. Carrie and I both plan to get one...when we've saved our money, which will be after the first of the year (around 5 months from now).

But if they come out with a new model 1 week after we buy ours, I'll just pull out the marvel of technology in my pocket, smile gratefully, and go on my way.

Why iPhone owners were mad about the price cut

I just read an interesting post on PCWorld.com called "Lessons Learned From the iPhone Price Cuts".

And I think they reach the wrong conclusions.

PCWorld said that introducing a product at a high price, then quickly lowering the price, is standard practice in the cellphone industry.
Their point was that Apple just lowered the price too soon, and too much.
I think Apple's mistake was in thinking it should be lowered at all.

The iPhone isn't an ordinary cellphone.
The Razr is a cellphone. Some might call it a smartphone. But in the minds of people everywhere, it's just another nice cellphone.
The iPhone, however, is an Apple.
It's not an ordinary cellphone, in the same way that the iMac isn't an ordinary desktop PC.
It has style, technology, and sex appeal no competing product has.
It's an Apple, after all.
And Apple doesn't build OR PRICE anything the way the rest of the industry does.

Everybody else comes out with a named product, and lowers the price until its discontinued.
That's why everybody else has model numbers in addition to product lines - it's the only way they can distinguish new from old.
Endless black boxes (or phones) with company names, company logos, product lines, model numbers, and CPU stickers hiding the black plainness.

Not Apple.

Apple's products are white. Clean. A logo and a product name, and nothing else to hide the white beauty.
And when Apple comes out with a named product at a premium price, they NEVER CHANGE THE PRICE.
They justify the price over time by increasing the specs on the product.
But they don't change the price.
At some point they determine that the product's "newness" has worn off.
Then they roll out a new product - a new look, new specs, and sometimes a new name.
But still at the same price.

The article mentioned Apple having lowered the iPod's original price.
However I don't think that's what happened.
If you read closely, they remember that a higher-spec'ed iPod at the same price as the original.
In other words, Apple increased the specs of the original iPod at the same price, and introduced a new lower-priced and lower-spec'ed model.
Business as usual for Apple.

Apple's pricing strategy feeds the general opinion that Apple sells premium products that justify their high asking price.
And their products really are good enough that even after purchase customers don't complain about the price because they got what they paid for.

Here's why the iPhone early-adopters were ticked-off:

For the first time any of them could remember...they felt cheated.

mono vs Visual Studio

I've had to do some investigation of VS2005 recently at work, and I'm reminded of just how easy Microsoft can make things. It's really a nice environment. Much better than VS2003, which isn't entirely bad itself. But the decision to use it at home would represent a submission to the Microsoft juggernaught. A well-paying, life-easing master it is, but make no mistake - it shares first place with no one.

But my thoughts always stray back to mono. I can use mono on Linux, which is quickly becoming my favorite OS. I can also use mono on my Macbook, which is the only laptop we own (currently). And I can still use mono on Windows as well, for those times when I must again get paid.

The note I set on Windows Messenger at work sums it up: Linux+mono for freedom, or Windows+VS for plush, thumb-sucking ease? However will I decide...

User-Mode File Systems - Not for Me

I mentioned in my previous post that I was thinking about user-mode filesystems as a way to write runtime- and language-independent APIs. Well, I've deciided I don't like the idea.

The single word that killed it was this: discoverability.

An API implemented as a file system would be difficult to "discover", even if you knew those files were provided dynamically by software. Here's what I mean.

1. It wouldn't be very self-documenting.
It would be difficult to learn about the API without seeing the documentation. A good API should be possible to learn and use (at least, at a basic level) without any formal help. And it always helps if the API conforms to some industry "norm" of organization. Config files and input/output redirection are very common in some operating systems. But manipulating files and folders that map to database records or domain objects is an unheard-of concept, and any pattern of mapping would be necessarily home-grown.

2. It would be hard to find the providing code.
Part of the point of user-mode file systems is that they're indistinguishable from the "regular" file system. It's hard enough to tell where one ends and the other begins. Finding out what software is "providing" which branch(es) of the folder hierarchy could be very difficult, especially if the user doing the research doesn't have administrative access to the server.

3. (I can't think of a good third point here, which I feel would strengthen the post. But I'm sure that as soon as I click "Publish Post", I'll think of a good one. So this is just a placeholder until then.)

User-mode file systems tempted me with the ability to write an API that didn't involve a wordy protocol (like web services) or have the limitations of data-level access. But I realize that currently accepted API mechanisms (especially web services) offer benefits that overcome their drawbacks. File system APIs will need to mature with a good set of best practices before I can accept them for my use.

User-mode File Systems with Mono

Yet another thing calling for me to waste my time...

I found a post by Miguel de Icaza talking about writing user-mode file systems in Linux using Mono and C#. (For those who don't know, de Icaza heads-up the Mono project for Novell.) The idea is intriguing to me for two reasons.

First, it's just cool! Think about using cd and cp and vim to browse and modify your application's object model, or your email, or your router settings, or whatever else you decide to expose. I don't know how useful it would be, but it sure sounds fun.

Secondly, though, it might actually be very useful. I'm definitely turning into a fan of C# on Linux, with a special interest in the architecture of large applications. I have long known that data-level and protocol-level integration seem to be the best guarantee of interoperability long-term, since they transcend even the language and/or runtime used to implement them. But now there's another option: file-system-level integration. FUSE presents an option for application integration that is both interactive and intuitive. Imagine having all the customers in your contacts database show up as folders under a mount point, with all their properties (name, email, phone) exposed as text files that you can edit or copy between contacts. While actually storing the data in the file system is probably unwise (although ReiserFS could change that), using FUSE allows the "file system" metaphor for interaction with your indexed, multi-user database.

I'll have to give it a try at home (since I have nothing else to do ;-) and post my conclusions later.

Life with Three Kids

Carrie sent me this. It's an excellent taste of what having three kids can be like:

http://yonkogirl.blogspot.com/2007/06/life-with-three-kids.html

Movie Review: Facing the Giants

Our pastor is going through a sermon series on the book of James. Possibly at his suggestion, our small group watched Facing the Giants in lieu of a lesson last night. Here's my review:

Short version: LOVED IT!!!

Long version:

Acting: It's true that it wasn't all that great. However, the only time it annoys is during the first 15 minutes. That's when the plot is waiting on character development before it can get rolling.

The plot: Truly amazing. Yes, parts of it are too predictable, twists notwithstanding. But it's still enjoyable to see how the plot develops, and it is a great feel-good movie. However, the movie's best strength is in showing how faith and works meet. Coach Taylor's message to the team is that if they give their very best, praising God regardless of the outcome, God will honor the effort.

A pivotal moment early in the movie (no spoiler here) is when Taylor blindfolds player Brock Kelley and has him give his best effort doing the "death crawl". Brock thinks he's trying for the 50-yard line, which is 20 yards farther than he believes he can go. He ends up realizing he is capable of much more when he focuses only on doing his best.

The entire movie is an excellent lesson in putting your faith into action, and in how God wants your very best - no less, and no more. My only regret is that it shows Coach Taylor as an effortless leader. He clearly struggles with faith, but appears to have no trouble at all communicating his vision - there is no "giving your best" shown in his effort to lead and teach his players. Still, I managed to sense that struggles can be intellectual as well as physical, and that "leaving it all on the field" doesn't just mean physical exhaustion.

Overall: VERY highly recommended, especially for those struggling with job decisions or with issues of faith vs. works.

The Value of Old Friends

I am surely the worst of friends.

If you're in my life on a daily basis, I can be (or I assume I am) as friendly a guy as you would want. But if you're out of sight, you're out of my mind. I am HORRIBLE about letting the very best of my friends fade out of my memory. My memory is not good, but it's really not that bad, either. I don't know why I don't call or email or visit, but I don't. And as I let them slip from my memory, I find I am losing something important, something of myself that I will greatly miss if it's gone.

For some reason, I have come to realize the mistake I'm making. So over the last few weeks I have been calling, visiting, and emailing the friends that are the main characters in so many of my best memories. Some have moved from Home, as I have, and some of those are quite far indeed. Others are still there, going on with different lives. But they're all somehow part of me, a part that I now know that I miss very much.

Tonight I was again reminded of how much I need my friends. One of the friends I grew up with came to my parent's house for dinner while we are in town visiting. She brought her two children - one of which I've met, the other (the 2-year-old) I have not. We talked about her life, and we talked about ours, the conversation suffering from neither the searches for wayward children nor from the years since we'd last talked. I was amazed at how easily the conversation came for her, my wife, and especially for me.

Last week I visited another of those old friends while visiting Home. Yesterday I called my best friend, and a bystander could not have known that it had been months instead of hours since I had heard his voice. I'm not the most emotionally articulate guy. My wife calls me moody. So maybe this post is a symptom of another mood swing.

But I've found something. Remembered something. And I think I know what it is, too: Home.

Anybody up for a game of spades? Play to 1000, no red twos, blind low is 200, bags, ...

Domain-FIRST Design

I'm still working my way through Domain-Driven Design by Eric Evans. While the "captivation" factor has gone down, the "interest in subject matter" factor has gone WAY up.


I just read his chapter on Aggregates - twice. And I may go back and read other chapters again, too. There were two major revelations for me in the chapter on Aggregates.

The first was the subject matter of the chapter. It is a totally new concept to me. I had never really considered "partitioning" the domain model into regions of guaranteed logical integrity but between which the rules may be lazily enforced. I saw at once that this was both a very useful concept, but also very foreign to me, giving me my first reason to re-read the chapter.

But the most important revelation was that it finally dawned on me that he's not talking about domain-driven database schema. In my mind, he's talking about domain-first design.

I "cut my teeth" in fast-and-furious ASP-land. All I was doing for five years was designing small databases (less than ten tables), and exposing them through ASP pages. I always started with the database design, and my mind never strayed far from it. There was neither reason, application, nor time to do proper three-tiered or n-tiered design, since I was literally just binding controls to tables. I learned about three-tiered design during this time, and I tried more than once to apply it, but in my little databound world I couldn't make it fit.

Now, I'm in all-grown-up-.NET-land. Objects. Proper three-tiered design. But my databound mindset hasn't left me. When interviewing for my current contract, they asked how I'd approach designing an application. I answered honestly: I'd start with the database schema, and work my way up. Even five chapters into Domain-Driven Design I was thinking in terms of domain-driven database schema. When Evans talked about limiting certain relationships to one-way as a way to save work, I wondered what he was talking about - you could always join tables, regardless of which table's key you were selecting by. When Evans talked about Entity vs. Value objects, I struggled, thinking that Value objects would still need to be stored in a table, and making me wonder how you could tell the difference.

In the chapter on Aggregates, Evans finally broke through. The examples he gives are of multiple users of a large, distributed system comprised of objects in memory. And Evans specifically draws a contrast between handling update conflicts at the database level and at the domain-layer level. And that's when I got it. While I have ALWAYS designed my software starting with the database schema, Evans is trying with his book to give me a different starting point - the domain layer. He wants me to envision the ideal object model first, write it and unit test it, even before designing a database schema.

It will require discipline - real effort - to design anything without regard for database schema. To think in terms of objects and relationships, apart from tables and primary and foreign keys. I'm going to revisit the design I spent a week without kids hammering out at home. I may go back and re-read other chapters, this time applying them to object design instead of database design. And I'm going to grow as a developer, because I finally see the light.

Thank you Eric Evans!

Relaxing at High RPM

I may be the first guy in history to say this (the first guy to admit it?) - I'm borrowing my mother-in-law's sports car this week.

My mother-in-law - that quiet, unassuming little lady - just bought a Mazda Miata. For the gas mileage (yeah, right).

She then made the mistake of taking my wife and kids with her husband to Iowa for a week.

She may never see the Miata again.

It's my first real experience with a sports car. (Purists: Maybe you don't think it's a sports car, but I sure think it is :-) Claustrophobic, hot (the gearbox), noisy, rough, and touchy. Sometimes I think I'm riding on gravel in a shopping cart because of the suspension. But it's FUN!!! It rockets away from red lights, and that 50-50 weight distribution makes me look forward to turns. How I'll ever go back to my positively boring Honda Accord I'll never know. But Carrie tells me I need to cool my jets, that it's "not the right time" for us to get a two-seater. >sigh<

Yesterday she called and asked what I was doing. "Going for a drive," I said. She wanted to know where I was going. Then she wanted to know why. I think she's been a mom too long - she's forgotten that it can be fun to just drive on a windy rural road and enjoy the wind, the trees, the hills, and the turns. She never really understood what I was doing. I never cared.

Anybody want to buy a used Accord?