Bøker av Martin L. Shoemaker

"Brazilian investigator Rosalia Morais, and her husband, revered American spacer Nicolau Aames, are building a life together in Mars's Maxwell City, the fastest-growing settlement on the planet. Good news: there are no natural predators. Bad news: there are humans. That means the crime rate is growing, too. To ensure public safety, Rosie's appointed by the mayor as the Red Planet's first sheriff. No sooner does she build a law enforcement squad than the biggest challenge looks to be internal. Policing the police for graft and corruption is one thing. But when an industrialist is found among the chars of an arson, it's murder. The fire leads to questions that can be answered by only one man--Nick's former officer on the Earth-to-Mars vessel the Aldrin. And Nick is still duty bound to keep the officer's secrets. As loyalties shift, trust breaks, and the tide of a political conspiracy rises, Rosie must solve a mystery that could doom the future of humanity on Mars."--Provided by publisher.

I WANT TO TELL YOU about three things: 1) myself, 2) my view of UML, process, and . NET and 3) Martin L. Shoemaker. From these three things, I hope to give you a per- spective on the value this book offers me-and most likely you, too. About Me As a developer, I've been "e;introduced"e; to several development processes and methodologies. The documentation for these processes literally covered feet of shelf space. I've also encountered a number of diagramming systems. To me, most of the latter come across as a boatload of funny symbols with a bunch of nuanced meanings dreamed up by their inventors and proponents. In both cases, I could easily see a half year of my life dedicated to understanding these systems. What would I gain from investing so much time in learning how someone else thinks about building software? And, if I do invest the time to learn a new vocabulary to discuss software systems, with whom will I communicate? Let's face it, irrespective of the part of the software lifecycle you're involved in, you're expected to produce something that looks or behaves in a specific, predictable manner. Note that I didn't say we always know what form that behavior will take! What I'm getting at here is that we have to have a mental model of what we're creating, and that model must be communicated and understood. To be successful, that model must also be complete and internally consistent.