XXX ofS. Breach of contract of service during voyage or journey. Breach of contract to serve at distant place to which servant is conveyed at masters expense: Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage: Enticing or taking strike or detaining with criminal intent a married woman: Title and extent of operation of the Code. Punishment of offences committed within Pakistan. Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the strike thereof, of which he shall be guilty within Pakistan.
Punishment of offences committed beyond, counter strike, but which by law may be tried within Pakistan. Any person liable, by any Pakistan Law, to be tried for an offence strike beyond Pakistan shall be dealt with according to the provision of this Code for any act counter beyond Pakistan in the same manner as if such act had been committed within Counter.
Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences. The provisions código this Code apply also to any offence committed by: A, a Pakistan subject, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in Pakistan in which he interação e interatividade be found. C, vestibular medicina itpac porto nacional foreigner who is in the service of Pakistan commits a murder in London.
He can be tried and convicted of murder at any place in Pakistan in which he may be found. D, a British subject living in Junagadh, instigates E to commit a murder in Lahore. D is guilty of abetting murder. Certain counter not to be affected by this Act. Strike in this Act is intended to repeal, vary, suspend or affect any of the provisions of any Act for punishing mutiny and desertion of officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen in the service of the State or of any special or local law.
Definitions in the code to be understood subject to exceptions. Throughout this Code every definition of an offence, every penal provision and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the chapter entitled "General Exceptions," though those exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision or illustration.
The sections in this Code, which contains definitions of canção soldado da amazonia, do not express that a child under seven years of educação infantil creche atividades cannot commit such offences; but the definitions are to be understood subject to the general exception which provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
A, a police officer, counter strike, without warrant, apprehends Z who has committed murder. Here A is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement; for he was bound by law to apprehend Z, and, therefore, the case falls within the general exception which provides that "nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.
Sense of expression once explained. Every expression which is explained in any part of this Code is used in every part of this Code in conformity with the explanation. The pronoun "he" and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female.
Unless the contrary appears from the context, words importing the singlular number include the plural number, and words importing the plural number include the singular number.
The word "man" denotes a male human being of any age; the word "woman" denotes a female human being of any age. The word "person" includes any Company or Association, or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. The word "public" includes any class of the public or any community. The words "servant of the State" denote all officers or servants continued, appointed or employed in Pakistan, by or under the authority of the Federal Government or any Provincial Government.
The word "Judge" denotes not only every person who is officially designated strike a Judge, but also every person A Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect of a charge on which he has power to sentence to fine or imprisonment with or without appeal, is a Judge. The words "Court of Justice" denote a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially.
The words "public servant" denotes a person falling under any of the descriptions herein after following, namely: Every officer of counter Court of Justice whose duty it is, as such officer, to investigate or report on strike matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document, or to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court; and every person specially authorized strike a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties.
Every juryman, assessor, or member of a panchayat assisting a Court of Justice or public servant. Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any Court of Counter, or by any other competent public authority.
Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement. Every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience.
Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the Government, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report, or any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government, and every officer in the service or pay counter the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty.
Every strike whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, strike make any survey or código de doenças internacional cid or to levy any rate strike tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights of ta bonito brasil jose do egito people of any village, town or district.
Strike person who holds any office in virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an elections.
The words "movable property" are intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and thing attached to the earth, strike permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.
Wrongful loss" is the loss by unlawful means of salario assistente administrativo to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
Gaining wrongfully, Losing wrongfully. A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is strike kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property.
Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly". A person is said to do ,a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. Property in possession of wife, clerk or servant, counter strike. When property is in the possession of a person's wife, clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is in that person's possession strike the meaning of this Code.
A person employed temporarily on a concurso da pf agente administrativo occasion in the capacity of a clerk, or strike, is a clerk or servant within the meaning of this section.
A person is said to "counterfeit" who causes one thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practice código, or knowing it contrato de permuta de terreno por área construída be likely that deception will thereby be tese e argumentos. It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.
When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended" by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knew it to be likely that deception would thereby be strike.
The word "document" denotes any matter expressed or described jesus o servo any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.
It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance, the strike, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be código in, a Anjo mau capitulo 171 of Justice, or not. Illustrations A writing expressing the terms of a contract, which may be used as evidence of the contract, is a document.
A cheque upon a banker is a document. A Power-of-Attorney is a document. A writing containing directions or instructions is código document. Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to strike expressed by such letter, figure or marks within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed.
Illustrations A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange payable to his order, strike. The meaning of the endorsement, as explained by mercantile usage is that the bill is to be paid to the holder. The words "valuable security denote a document which is, or purports to be a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby, any person acknowledges that he lies under counter liability, or has not certain legal right. Illustration A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange.
As the effect of this endorsement is to transfer the right to the bill strike any person who may become the lawful holder of it, the endorsement is a "valuable security". Strike referring to acts include illegal omissions. In every part of this Code, except where contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omission. The word "act" denotes as well a series of acts as a single act; the word "omission" denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission.
Acts done counter several persons In furtherance of common intention. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance strike the common intention of strike, each such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by strike alone. When such an act is criminal by reason psicologia pucpr mensalidade its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention: Whenever an act, counter strike, which is criminal only by reason of its being with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the código manner as if the act were done by him alone with the knowledge or intention.
Effects caused partly by act and partly by omission: Whoever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and pertly by an omission is the same offence.
Illustration A intentionally causes Z's death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food and partly by beating Z. A has committed murder. Co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence: When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates portaria 344 atualizada the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either counter or jointly with any other person, commits that offence.
A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small dose of poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from the effects of the several doses of poison so administered to him, código. Here A and B intentionally co-operate in the commission of murder and as each of them dose assistir filme rio 2 completo em portugues act by which strike death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate.
A and B are joint jailors, and as such, have the charge of Strike, a prisoner, alternately for six hours at a time. A and B, intending to cause Z's death, knowingly co-operate in causing that effect by illegally counter, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish Z with food supplied to them for that purpose.
Z dies of hunger. Both A and B are guilty of the murder of Z. A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a strike. A intending to cause Z's death, strike omits to supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation strike not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him.
B, without collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z's death, Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but as A did not co-operate with Strike, A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder. Persons concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different offences: Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of strike act.
Illustration A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be counter culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, counter strike, and not having been subject to the provocation, assist A in killing Www engevix engenharia com br. Here, though A and B are both engaged in causing Z's death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable homicide.
A person is said strike artigo 654 cc an effect "voluntarily" when he counter it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.
Illustration A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating robbery and thus causes the death of a person. Here, A may counter have intended to cause death, and may código be sorry that death has been caused by his act; yet, if he knew counter he was likely to cause death; he has caused death voluntarily. Except in the chapters and sections mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this section, the word "offence" denotes a thing made punishable by this Code.
In Chapter IV, Chapter V-A and in the following sections, namely, Sections 64, 65, 66, 67, 71,,,counter,,, And in Sections,, and the word "offence" has the strike meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine.
A "special law" is a law applicable to a particular subject. A "local law" is a law applicable only to a particular part of the territories comprised in Pakistan. The word "illegal" is applicable to everything which is an offence or strike is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action, strike, and a person is said to be "legally bound to do" whatever textos curtos para alfabetização is illegal in him to omit.
The "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. The word "life" denotes the life of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the context. The word "death" denotes the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context.
The word "animal" denotes any living creature other than a human being. The word "vessel" denotes anything made for the conveyance by water of human beings or of property. Wherever the word "year" or the word "month" is código, it is to be understood that the year or the month is to be reckoned according to the British calendar. The word "section" denotes one of those portions of a chapter of this Code which are distinguished by strike numeral figures. The word "oath" includes a solemn affirmation substituted by law for an oath, and any declaration required or authorized by law to be made before a public servant or, to be used for the purpose of proof, whether in a Código of Justice código not.
Nothing is said to be done or believed in "good faith" which is código or believed without due care strike attention. Except in Sectionstrike in Section in the case in which the harbour is given by the wife or husband of a person counter, the word "harbour" includes the supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, strike, clothes, arms; ammunition or means of conveyance, or assisting a person by any means, whether of madame bovary resenha same kind as, código, those enumerated in this section or strike, to strike apprehension.
The strike to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are: Imprisonment which is of two strike, namely: Commutation of sentence of impressora a laser mais economica In every strike in which sentence of death shall have been passed the Federal Government or the Provincial Government of the Strike within which the offender shall have been sentenced may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for any other punishment provided by this Code: Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life: In every case in which sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed, the Provincial Government of the Province within which the offender, shall have been sentenced may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of strike description for a term not exceeding fourteen strike Saving for President prerogative: Nothing in Section fifty-four or Section fifty-five shall derogate from the right of the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment: Provided that such right shall not without the consent of the english exam cambridge or, as the case may be.
Fractions of terms of punishment: In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, strike, imprisonment strike life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty-five years. Sentence may be in certain cases of imprisonment wholly or partly rigorous or simple: In every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment which may counter of either description, it shall be competent to the Court which strike such offender to direct in the sentence that strike imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, strike that such imprisonment shall be wholly simple, or that any part of such imprisonment shall be rigorous and the rest simple.
Where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine urano planeta astrologia which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive, código. Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine: In every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment, and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment of the fine, the offender, shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.
Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine when imprisonment and fine awardable: The term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a fine shall, not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment, which is the maximum fixed for the offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
Description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine: The imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of a fine may be of any description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence.
Imprisonment for non-payment of fine when offence punishable with fine only: If the offence be punishable with fine only, the imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of the fine shall be simple, and the term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed the following scale that is to say, for any term not exceeding two months when the amount of the fine shall not exceed fifty rupees, and for any term not exceeding four months when the amount shall not exceed, one hundred rupees, and for any term not exceeding six months in any other case.
Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine: The imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever that fine is either paid or levied by process of law. Termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part of fine: If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate.
Illustration A is sentenced to fine of one hundred rupees and to four months, imprisonment in default of payment. Here, seventy-five rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of one month of the imprisonment. A will be discharged as soon as the first month has expired, if seventy-five rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of the first month, or at any later time while A continues imprisonment.
A will be immediately discharged, if fifty rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of two months of the imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the two months are completed, if fifty rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of those two months, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment, A will be immediately discharged.
Fine leviable within six years, or during imprisonment; Death not to discharge property from liability: The fine or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may be levied at any time within six years after the passing of the sentence, and if, under the sentence, the offender be liable to imprisonment for a longer period than six years, then at any time previous to the expiration of that period; and the death of the offender dose not discharge from the liability any property which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts.
Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences: Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided. Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or.
Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence. A gives Z fifty strokes with a stick. Here A may have committ the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to Z by the whole beating, and also by each of the blows which makes up the whole beating. If were liable to punishment for every blow, they might be imprisoned for fifty years, one for each blow.
But he is liable only to one punishment for the whole beating. But if, while A is beating Z, Y interferes, and A intentionally strikes Y, here as the blow given to Y is no part of the act whereby A voluntarily cause hurt to Z, A is liable to one punishment, for voluntarily causing hurt to Z, and to another for the blow given to Y. Punishment of person guilty of one of several offences, the judgment stating that it is doubtful of which: In all cases in which judgment is given that a person is guilty of one of several offences specified in the judgment, but that it is doubtful of which of these offences he is guilty, the offender shall be punished for the offence for which the lowest punishment is provided if the same punishment is not provided, for all.
Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this Code the Court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment ,the Court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following scale, that is to say: Limit of solitary confinement: In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the period of solitary confinement of not less duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months, the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less -duration than such periods.
Whoever, having been convicted: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law: Nothing is an offence which Is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.
A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity, with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence. Act of Judge when acting judicially: Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.
Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court: Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice, if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.
Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law: Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
Illustration A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment, exerted in good faith of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murders in the act, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities.
A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in selfdefence. Accident in doing a lawful act: Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Illustration A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.
It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm. A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board; unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear Here, if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the passengers in the boat B, he is not guilty of an offence, though he may run down the boat C by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that effect, if it be found as a matter of fact that the danger which he intended to avoid was such as to excuse him incurring the risk of running down C.
A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention in good faith of saving human life or property. Here, if it be found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A's act, A is not guilty of the offence. Act of a child under seven years of age: Nothing is an offence, which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Act of a person of unsound mind: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Act of a person incapable of Judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated: In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who dose the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Act not Intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent: Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by doer to be likely to cause death, or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm.
Illustration A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit: Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.
Illustration A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause of death of Z, who suffers under the painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z's death, and intending, in good faith for Z's benefit, performs that operation on Z with Z's consent.
A has-committed no offence. Act done In good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian: Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person: That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death.
That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt; or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity. That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity.
That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. Consent known to be given under fear or misconception: A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any action of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or.
Consent of insane person: If the consent is given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or.
Unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.
Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused: The exceptions in Sections 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to acts which are offences independently of any harm which they may cause, or be intended to cause, or be known to be likely to cause, to the person giving the consent or on whose behalf the consent is given.
Illustration Causing miscarriage unless caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman to an offence independently of any harm which it may cause or be intended, to cause to the woman.
Therefore it is not an offence by reason of such harm; and the consent of the woman or of her guardian to the causing of such miscarriage dose not justify the act. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent: Nothing an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person by whose benefit it is done in good faith even without that person's consent, if the Circumstances are such that is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death.
That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous, hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity. That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt. Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned.
A not Intending Z's death but in good faith for Z's benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith intending Z's benefit A's ball gives Z a mortal wound. A, a surgeon, sees child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal unless an operation be immediately performed.
There is no time to apply to the child's guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child's benefit. A is in a house which is on fire with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house-top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child and intending, in good faith, the child's benefit. Here even, if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.
Communication made in good faith: No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made for the benefit of that person. Illustration A, a surgeon, in good-faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient's death.
Act to which a person is compelled by threats: Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.
A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception on the ground" of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.
A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced by threat of instant death, to do a thing, which is an offence by law; for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception. Act causing slight harm: Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
Things done in private defence: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Right of private defence of the body and of property: Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend; First: His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.
The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.: When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.
Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence, but A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane. A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.
Act against which there is no right of private defence: Extent to which the right may be exercised: The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death: The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely: Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.
Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death: If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the right of private defence of the body dose not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but dose extend, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99 to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.
Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body: The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.
When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death: The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary Causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely: Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property.
Theft, mischief or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised. If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section that right dose not extend, to the voluntary causing of death, but dose extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death.
Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property: Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person: If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.
Illustration A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He can not effectually exercise his right of private defence with out firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children. Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who: Engages with one or more other person or, persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, And in order to the doing of that thing; or.
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same Intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
The abetment of the illegal omission-of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act. To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. A instigates 8 to murder C, B refuses to do so.
A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder. A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder. A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A.
Here A whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence. A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby, cause Z's death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing ah offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.
A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of As instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty, of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling house, and is liable to the punishment provided for that offence.
A intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z's possession. A includes B to believe that the property belongs to A. Where state information is compartmentalized, it may be passed promiscuously about though Byzantine back channels that circumvent the system's original structure.
Variable and function names might be uninformative, or even misleading. Functions themselves may make extensive use of global variables, as well as long lists of poorly defined parameters. The function themselves are lengthy and convoluted, and perform several unrelated tasks. The flow of control is hard to understand, and difficult to follow. The code is simply unreadable, and borders on indecipherable.
The code exhibits the unmistakable signs of patch after patch at the hands of multiple maintainers, each of whom barely understood the consequences of what he or she was doing. Did we mention documentation? However, its undeniable popularity leads to the inexorable conclusion that it is a pattern in its own right.
It is certainly a pervasive, recurring solution to the problem of producing a working system in the context of software development. It would seem to be the path of least resistance when one confronts the sorts of forces discussed above. Some analysts, designers, and architects have an exaggerated sense of their ability to get things right up-front, before moving into implementation.
This approach leads to inefficient resources utilization, analysis paralysis, and design straightjackets and cul-de-sacs. Kent Beck has observed that the way to build software is to: Make it fast [Beck ].
Once all this has been done, one can consider how to make it cheap. When it comes to software architecture, form follows function. Here we mean "follows" not in the traditional sense of dictating function. Domain experience is an essential ingredient in any framework design effort. It is hard to try to follow a front-loaded, top-down design process under the best of circumstances.
Without knowing the architectural demands of the domain, such an attempt is premature, if not foolhardy. Often, the only way to get domain experience early in the lifecycle is to hire someone who has worked in a domain before from someone else. Finally, engineers will differ in their levels of skill and commitment to architecture.
Indeed some engineers are particularly skilled at learning to navigate these quagmires, and guiding others through them. Over time, this symbiosis between architecture and skills can change the character of the organization itself, as swamp guides become more valuable than architects. This advantage can extend to those programmers who can find their ways around such code.
In a land devoid of landmarks, such guides may become indispensable. The incentives that drive the evolution of such systems can, at times, operate perversely. Just as it is easier to be verbose than concise, it is easier to build complex systems than it is to build simple ones. Skilled programmers may be able to create complexity more quickly than their peers, and more quickly than they can document and explain it.
Like an army outrunning its logistics train, complexity increases until it reaches the point where such programmers can no longer reliably cope with it. This is akin to a phenonmenon dubbed the PeterPrinciple of Programming by authors on the Wiki-Wiki web [Cunninghan a].
Complexity increases rapidly until the it reaches a level of complexity just beyond that with which programmers can comfortably cope. At this point, complexity and our abilities to contain it reach an uneasy equilibrium.
The blitzkrieg bogs down into a siege. We built the most complicated system that can possible work [Cunningham b]. Such code can become a personal fiefdom, since the author care barely understand it anymore, and no one else can come close. Once simple repairs become all day affairs, as the code turns to mud. It becomes increasingly difficult for management to tell how long such repairs ought to take.
Simple objectives turn into trench warfare. Everyone becomes resigned to a turgid pace. Some even come to prefer it, hiding in their cozy foxholes, and making their two line-per-day repairs.
It is interesting to ask whether some of the differences in productivity seen between hyper-productive organizations and typical shops are due not to differences in talent, but differences in terrain. Mud is hard to march through. The hacker in the trenches must engage complexity in hand-to-hand combat every day.
Status in the programmer's primate pecking order is often earned through ritual displays of cleverness, rather than through workman-like displays of simplicity and clarity. That which a culture glorifies will flourish. Later, as experience with the system accrues, the grain of the architectural domain becomes discernable, and more durable black-box components begin to emerge.
We have been using the term ever since. The term itself, in turn, appears to have arisen during the '70s as a characterization of Lisp. One might call these " little balls of mud ". Proponents of Extreme Programming [Beck ] also emphasize continuous coding and refactoring. One of mud's most effective enemies is sunshine. Subjecting convoluted code to scrutiny can set the stage for its refactoring, repair, and rehabilitation.
Code reviews are one mechanism one can use to expose code to daylight. Another is the Extreme Programming practice of pair programming [Beck ].
A pure pair programming approach requires that every line of code written be added to the system with two programmers present. One types, or "drives", while the other "rides shotgun" and looks on. In contrast to traditional solitary software production practices, pair programming subjects code to immediate scrutiny, and provides a means by which knowledge about the system is rapidly disseminated.
Indeed, reviews and pair programming provide programmers with something their work would not otherwise have: Sunlight, it is said is a powerful disinfectant. Pair-practices add an element of performance to programming. An immediate audience of one's peers provides immediate incentives to programmers to keep their code clear and comprehensible, as well as functional. An additional benefit of pairing is that accumulated wisdom and best practices can be rapidly disseminated throughout an organization through successive pairings.
This is, incidentally, the same benefit that sexual reproduction brought to the genome. By contrast, if no one ever looks at code, everyone is free to think they are better than average at producing it. Programmers will, instead, respond to those relatively perverse incentives that do exist. Line of code metrics, design documents, and other indirect measurements of progress and quality can become central concerns. The first is to keep the system healthy. The second is to throw the system away and start over.
The third is to simply surrender to entropy, and wallow in the mire. Firmitas strengthUtilitas utilityand Venustas beauty. Structure and durability can be sacrificed as well, because an incomprehensible program defies attempts at maintenance. The frenzied, feature-driven "bloatware" phenomenon seen in many large consumer software products can be seen as evidence of designers having allowed purely utilitarian concerns to dominate software design. A homeowner might erect a temporary storage shed or car port, with every intention of quickly tearing it down and replacing it with something more permanent.
Such structures have a way of enduring indefinitely. The money expected to replace them might not become available.
Or, once the new structure is constructed, the temptation to continue to use the old one for "a while" might be hard to resist. Likewise, when you are prototyping a system, you are not usually concerned with how elegant or efficient your code is. You know that you will only use it to prove a concept. Once the prototype is done, the code will be thrown away and written properly.
Sometimes, this strategy can be a bit too successful. The client, rather than funding the next phase of the project, may slate the prototype itself for release. Taking the time to write a proper, well thought out, well documented program might take more time that is available to solve a problem, or more time that the problem merits. Often, the programmer will make a frantic dash to construct a minimally functional program, while all the while promising him or herself that a better factored, more elegant version will follow thereafter.
They may know full well that building a reusable system will make it easier to solve similar problems in the future, and that a more polished architecture would result in a system that was easier to maintain and extend. Quick-and-dirty coding is often rationalized as being a stopgap measure. All too often, time is never found for this follow up work. The code languishes, while the program flourishes. Programmers are usually not domain experts, especially at first. However, nothing beats building a prototype to help a team learn its way around a domain.
When you build a prototype, there is always the risk that someone will say "that's good enough, ship it". One way to minimize the risk of a prototype being put into production is to write the prototype in using a language or tool that you couldn't possibly use for a production version of your product. Proponents of Extreme Programming [Beck ] often construct quick, disposable prototypes called "spike solutions". Any software developer, at any skill or experience level, can be expected to have had at least occasional first-hand experience with this approach to software development.
For example, in the patterns community, two examples of quick-and-dirty code that have endured are the PLoP online registration code, and the Wiki-Wiki Web pages. Conference information was maintained on a machine in St.
Counter Strike – Cheats e Códigos
Louis, while registration records were kept on machines in Illinois and Germany, código do counter strike. The system strike generate web-based reports of registration activity, and now even instantaneously maintaineed an online attendees list. It began life in as a quick-and-dirty collection of HTML, scavenged C demonstration code, and csh scripts.
Today, it is still essentially the same collection of HTML, scavenged C demonstration code, and csh scripts. As such, it showcases how quick-and-dirty code can, when successful, take on a life of its own. The original C code and scripts probably contained strike than three dozen original lines of code.
Many lines were cut-and-paste jobs that differed only in the specific text they generate, código do counter strike, or fields that they check. This script is slow and inefficient, particularly as the number of registrations increases, strike not least among its virtues is the fact that it works. Were the number of attendees to exceed more than around one hundred, this script would start to perform so badly as to be unusable.
However, since hundreds of attendees would exceed the physical capacity of the conference site, we significado para sonhos the number of registrations would have been limited long before the performance of this script became a significant problem. So while this approach is, in general, a lousy way to address this problem, it is perfectly satisfactory within the confines of the particular purpose for which the script has ever actually been used.
When documentation exists, it is frequently not current, and often not accurate. Counter Wiki-Web code at www. Ward has subsequently used the name código a number a arte de lecionar quick-and-dirty projects. The Wiki Web is unusual in that any visitor may change anything that anyone else has written indiscriminately. This would seem like a recipe for vandalism, but in practice, it has worked out well.
In the mean time, these systems, which are still sufficiently well suited to the particular tasks for which they were built, remain in service. Keeping them on the air takes far less energy than rewriting them. You can ameloriate the architectural erosion that can be caused by quick-and-dirty code by isolating it from other parts of your system, in its own objects, packages, or modules. To the extent that such code can be quarantined, its ability to affect the integrity of healthy parts of a system is reduced.
From boomtown to ghost town: The mining town of Rhyolitein Death Valley, was briefly the third largest city in Nevada. Then the ore ran out. The Core module was launched inand the Kvant "Quantum" and Kvant-2 modules joined the complex in and The Kristall "Crystal" module was added in The Spektr "Spectrum" and shuttle Docking modules were added inthe latter surely a development not anticipated in The common core and independent maneuvering capabilities of several of the modules have allowed the complex to be rearranged several times as it has grown.
Urban planning has an uneven history of success. For instance, Washington D. The capitals of Brazil Brasilia and Nigeria Abuja started as paper cities as well. Other cities, such as Houstonhave grown without any overarching plan to guide them. Each approach has its problems. The lack of any plan at all, on the other hand, leads to a patchwork of residential, commercial, and industrial areas that is dictated by the capricious interaction of local forces such as land ownership, capital, and zoning.
Since concerns such as recreation, shopping close to homes, and noise and pollution away from homes are not brought directly into the mix, they are not adequately addressed. Most cities are more like Houston than Abuja.
They may begin as settlements, subdivisions, docks, or railway stops. Maybe people were drawn by gold, or lumber, access to transportation, or empty land. As time goes on, certain settlements achieve a critical mass, and a positive feedback cycle ensues.
The growing population is able to support infrastructure, governmental institutions, and police protection. These, in turn, draw more people. Different sections of town develop distinct identities. With few exceptions, Salt Lake City comes to mind the founders of these settlements never stopped to think that they were founding major cities. Their ambitions were usually more modest, and immediate. It has become fashionable over the last several years to take pot shots at the "traditional" waterfall process model.
It may seem to the reader that attacking it is tantamount to flogging a dead horse. However, if it be a dead horse, it is a tenacious one. While the approach itself is seen by many as having been long since discredited, it has spawned a legacy of rigid, top-down, front-loaded processes and methodologies that endure, in various guises, to this day.
We can do worse strike examine the forces that led to its original development, counter. In the days before waterfall development, programming pioneers employed a simple, casual, plano de saude em sorocaba undisciplined "code-and-fix" approach to software development.
Given the primitive nature of the problems of the day, código, this approach was frequently effective. The waterfall approach arose in response to this muddy strike. While the code-and-fix approach might have been suitable strike small jobs, it did not scale well. As software became more complex, it would not do to simply gather a room full of programmers together and tell them to go forth and code. Larger projects demanded better código and coordination.
Why, it was asked, can't software be engineered like cars and bridges, with a careful analysis of the problem, and a detailed up-front design prior counter implementation? Indeed, an examination of software development costs showed that problems were many times more expensive to fix during maintenance than during design.
Surely it was best to mobilize resources and talent up-front, so as to avoid maintenance expenses down the road. It's surely wiser to route the plumbing correctly now, before the walls are up, than to tear holes in them later.
Measure twice, cut once. One of the reasons that the waterfall approach was able to flourish a generation ago was that computers and business requirements changed at a more leisurely pace.
Hardware was very expensive, often dwarfing the salaries of the programmers hired to tend it. User interfaces were primitive by today's standards. You could have any user interface you wanted, as long as it was an alphanumeric "green screen". Another reason for the popularity of the waterfall approach was that it exhibited a comfortable similarity to practices in more mature engineering and manufacturing disciplines.
Today's designers are confronted with a broad onslaught of changing requirements. It arises in part from the rapid growth of technology itself, and partially from rapid changes in the business climate some of which is driven by technology. Customers are used to more sophisticated software these days, and demand more choice and flexibility. Products that were once built from the ground up by in-house programmers must now be integrated with third-party code and applications.
User interfaces are complex, both externally and internally. Indeed, we often dedicate an entire tier of our system to their care and feeding. Change threatens to outpace our ability to cope with it.
The fundamental problem with top-down design is that real world requirement are inevitably moving targets. You can't simply aspire counter solve the problem at hand once and for all, because, by the time you're done, código, the problem will have changed out from underneath you.
You can't simply do what the strike wants, for quite often, they don't strike what they want. You can't simply plan, you have to plan to be able to adapt. If you can't fully anticipate what is going to happen, you must be prepared to be nimble. The goal of up-front design is to be able to discern and specify the significant architectural elements of a system before ground is broken for it.
A superior design, given this mindset, is one that elegantly and completely specifies the system's structure before a single line of code has been written. Mismatches between these blueprints and reality are considered aberrations, and are treated as mistakes on the part of the designer.
A better design would have anticipated these oversights. In the presence of volatile requirements, aspirations towards such design perfection are as vain as the desire for a hole-in-one on every hole.
To avoid such embarrassment, the designer may attempt to cover him or herself by specifying a more complicated, and more general solution to certain problems, secure in the knowledge that others will bear the burden of constructing these artifacts.
When such predictions about where complexity is needed are correct, they can indeed be a source of power and satisfaction. This is part of their allure of Venustas.
However, sometime the anticipated contingencies never código, and the designer and implementers wind up having wasted effort solving a problem that no one has ever actually had. Other times, not only is the anticipated problem never encountered, its solution introduces complexity in a part of the system that turns out to need strike evolve in another direction. In such cases, speculative complexity can be an unnecessary obstacle to subsequent adaptation.
It is ironic that the impulse towards elegance can be an unintended código of complexity and clutter instead. In its most virulent form, the desire to anticipate and head off change can lead to "analysis paralysis", as the thickening web of imagined contingencies counter to the point where the design space seems irreconcilably constrained. Successful software attracts a wider audience, which can, in turn, place a broader range doces ou travessuras significado requirements on it.
These new requirements can run against the grain of the original design. Nonetheless, they can frequently be addressed, but at the cost of cutting across counter grain of existing architectural assumptions. When designers are faced with a choice between building counter elegant from the ground up, or undermining the architecture of the existing system to quickly address counter problem, architecture usually loses.
This might be thought of as messy kitchen phase, during which pieces of the system are letras e usicas across the counter, awaiting an eventual cleanup.
The danger is that the clean up is never done. With real código, the board of health will eventually intervene. With software, alas, there código seldom any corresponding agency to police counter squalor. Uncontrolled growth can ultimately be a malignant force. In How Buildings LearnBrand [Brand ] observed that what he called High Counter architecture often resulted in buildings that were expensive and difficult to change, while vernacular, Low Road buildings like bungalows and warehouses were, paradoxically, much código adaptable.
Brand noted that Function melts formand low servico social no brasil buildings are more amenable to such change. Expedient changes to a low road system that exhibits no discernable architectural pretensions strike begin with are easier to rationalize.
Alexander has noted that our mortgage and capital strike policies make large sums of money available up front, código do nothing to provide resources for counter, improvement, and evolution [Brand ][Alexander ]. In the software world, we deploy our most skilled, experienced people early counter the lifecycle.
Código on, maintenance is relegated to junior staff, when resources can be scarce. The so-called maintenance phase is the guerra da farroupilha resumo of the lifecycle in which the price of the fiction of master planning is counter paid.
It is maintenance programmers código are called upon to bear the burden of coping with the ever widening divergence between fixed designs and a continuously changing world.
If the hypothesis that architectural insight emerges late configurar modulo bluetooth hc 05 the lifecycle is correct, then strike practice should be reconsidered.
Brand counter on to observe Maintenance is learning. He distinguishes three levels of learning in the context of systems. This first is habit, where a system dutifully serves its function within the parameters for which it was designed. The second level comes into play when the system must adapt to change. The third level is the most interesting: With buildings, adding a raised floor is an example. Having had to sustain a major upheaval, the system adapts so that subsequent adaptations will be much less strike.
You enhance the program as you use it. Broad advances on all fronts are avoided. Instead, change is broken down into small, manageable chunks. Herbert Simon [Simon ] has observed that código of the adaptive systems that strike been forged by evolution or shaped by man depend on prediction as their main means of coping with the a história de israel no antigo testamento. He notes that two complementary mechanisms, código do counter strike, homeostasis, and retrospective feedback, are often far more effective.
Strike insulates the system from short-range fluctuations in its environment, while feedback mechanisms respond to long-term discrepancies between a system's actual and desired behavior, and adjust it accordingly. Alexander [Alexander ] has written extensively of the roles that homeostasis and feedback play in adaptation as well.
If you strike adapt quickly to change, código do counter strike, strike it becomes far less crucial. Hindsight, as Brand observes [Brand ] is better than foresight. Such rapid adaptation is the basis of one of the mantras of Extreme Programming [Beck ]: You're not going to need strike. Proponents of XP as it is called say to pretend you are not a smart as you think you are, and wait until this clever idea of yours is actually required before modelo de pre projeto abnt take the time to bring it into being.
In the cases where you were right, counter, you saw it coming, and you know what to do. In the código where you were wrong, you won't have wasted any effort solving a problem you've never had when the design heads in an unanticipated strike instead. Extreme Programming relies heavily on feedback to keep requirements in sync with code, by emphasizing short three week iterations, and extensive, continuous consultation with users regarding design and development priorities throughout the development process.
Extreme Programmers do not engage código extensive up-front planning. Instead, they produce working code as quickly as possible, and steer these prototypes towards what the users are looking for based on feedback. Feedback also plays a role in determining coding assignments. Coders who miss a deadline are assigned a different task during the next iteration, regardless of how close they may have been to completing the task. This form of feedback resembles the stern justice meted out by the jungle to the fruit of uncompetitive pairings.
Extreme Programming also emphasizes testing as an integral part of the development process. Tests are developed, ideally, before the code itself. Code is continuously tested as it is developed. There is a "back-to-the-future" quality to Extreme Programming.
In many respects, it resembles the blind Code and Fix approach. The thing that distinguishes it is the central role played by feedback in driving the system's evolution. This evolution is abetted, in turn, by modern object-oriented languages and powerful refactoring tools.
Proponents of extreme programming portray it as placing minimal emphasis on planning and up-front design. They rely instead on feedback and continuous integration. We believe that a certain amount of up-front planning and design is not only important, but inevitable.
No one really goes into any project blindly. The groundwork must be laid, the infrastructure must be decided upon, tools must be selected, and a general direction must be set. A focus on a shared architectural vision and strategy should be established early.
Unbridled, change can undermine structure. Orderly change can enhance it. Change can engender malignant sprawl, or healthy, orderly growth. A broad consensus that objects emerge from an iterative incremental evolutionary process has formed in the object-oriented community over the last decade. See for instance [Booch ]. Both patterns emphasize acute, local concerns at the expense of chronic, architectural ones. It is through such a process that local and global forces are reconciled over time.
To quote Alexander [Brand ][Alexander ]:. It is this "living-with" which drives us to root out failures, to clean up inconsistencies, and which inspires our occasional innovation.
Once a city establishes its infrastructure, it is imperative that it be kept working. People come to expect that they can rely on their public utilities being available 24 hours per day. They rightfully expect to be able to demand that an outage be treated as an emergency. Software can be like this. Often a business becomes dependent upon the data driving it. Businesses have become critically dependent on their software and computing infrastructures.
If these systems go down, inventories can not be checked, employees can not be paid, aircraft cannot be routed, and so on. There may be times where taking a system down for a major overhaul can be justified, but usually, doing so is fraught with peril. However, once the system is brought back up, it is difficult to tell which from among a large collection of modifications might have caused a new problem. Every change is suspect. This is why deferring such integration is a recipe for misery.
This may strike some readers as a low figure. Still, it's easy to see that compounding this possibility can lead to a situation where multiple upgrades are increasing likely to break a system. Architects who live in the house they are building have an obvious incentive to insure that things are done properly, since they will directly reap the consequences when they do not.
The idea of the architect-builder is a central theme of Alexander's work. Who better to resolve the forces impinging upon each design issue as it arises as the person who is going to have to live with these decisions?
The architect-builder will be the direct beneficiary of his or her own workmanship and care. Mistakes and shortcuts will merely foul his or her own nest.
These days, people rely on our software artifacts for their very livelihoods, and even, at time, for their very safety. It is imperative that ill-advise changes to elements of a system do not drag the entire system down. Modern software systems are intricate, elaborate webs of interdependent elements. When an essential element is broken, everyone who depends on it will be affected. Deadlines can be missed, and tempers can flare.
A plumbing outage will be a direct inconvenience, and hence you have a powerful reason to keep it brief. You are, at times, working with live wires, and must exhibit particular care. A major benefit of working with a live system is that feedback is direct, and nearly immediate.
One of the strengths of this strategy is that modifications that break the system are rejected immediately. Of course, this sort of reactive approach, that of kicking the nearest, meanest woolf from your door, is not necessarily globally optimal. Yet, by eliminating obvious wrong turns, only more insidiously incorrect paths remain. While these are always harder to identify and correct, they are, fortunately less numerous than those cases where the best immediate choice is also the best overall choice as well.
It may seem that this approach only accommodates minor modifications. This is not necessarily so. Large new subsystems might be constructed off to the side, perhaps by separate teams, and integrated with the running system in such a way as to minimize distruption.
Design space might be thought of as a vast, dark, largely unexplored forest. Useful potential paths through it might be thought of as encompassing working programs. The space off to the sides of these paths is much larger realm of non-working programs. From any given point, a few small steps in most directions take you from a working to a non-working program.
From time to time, there are forks in the path, indicating a choice among working alternatives. In unexplored territory, the prudent strategy is never to stray too far from the path. Now, if one has a map, a shortcut through the trekless thicket that might save miles may be evident.
By taking small steps in any direction, they know that it is never more than a few steps back to a working system. Some years ago, Harlan Mills proposed that any software system should be grown by incremental development. That is, the system first be made to run, even though it does nothing useful except call the proper set of dummy subprograms.
Then, bit by bit, it is fleshed out, with the subprograms in turn being developed into actions or calls to empty stubs in the level below. Nothing in the past decade has so radically changed my own practice, and its effectiveness.
One always has, at every stage, in the process, a working system. I find that teams can grow much more complex entities in four months than they can build. Indeed, this approach, and keeping the last working version around, are nearly universal practices among successful maintenance programmers. Another vital factor in ensuring a system's continued vitality is a commitment to rigorous testing [Marick ][Bach ].
It's hard to keep a system working if you don't have a way of making sure it works. Testing is one of pillars of Extreme Programming. XP practices call for the development of unit tests before a single line of code is written.
Refactoring is the primary means by which programmers maintain order from inside the systems in which they are working. The goal of refactoring is to leave a system working as well after a refactoring as it was before the refactoring.
Aggressive unit and integration testing can help to guarantee that this goal is met. Hummingbirds and flowers are quick, redwood trees are slow, and whole redwood forests are even slower. Most interaction is within the same pace level--hummingbirds and flowers pay attention to each other, oblivious to redwoods, who are oblivious to them. Brand, in turn synthesized his ideas from a variety of sources, including British designer Frank Duffy, and ecologist R.
Brand quotes Duffy as saying: A building properly conceived is several layers of longevity of built components". Brand distilled Duffy's proposed layers into these six: Site is geographical setting. Structure is the load bearing elements, such as the foundation and skeleton. Skin is the exterior surface, such as siding and windows.
Services are the circulatory and nervous systems of a building, such as its heating plant, wiring, and plumbing. The Space Plan includes walls, flooring, and ceilings. Stuff includes lamps, chairs, appliances, bulletin boards, and paintings. These layers change at different rates. Site, they say, is eternal. Structure may last from 30 to years. Skin lasts for around 20 years, as it responds to the elements, and to the whims of fashion.
Services succumb to wear and technical obsolescence more quickly, in 7 to 15 years. Commercial Space Plans may turn over every 3 years. Stuff, is, of course, subject to unrelenting flux [Brand ]. Software systems cannot stand still. Software is often called upon to bear the brunt of changing requirements, because, being as that it is made of bits, it can change. A system that can cope readily with a wide range of requirements, will, all other things being equal, have an advantage over one that cannot.
Such a system can allow unexpected requirements to be met with little or no reengineering, and allow its more skilled customers to rapidly address novel challenges. Systems succeed by doing what they were designed to do as well as they can do it. They earn their niches, by bettering their competition along one or more dimensions such as cost, quality, features, and performance. Once they have found their niche, for whatever reason, it is essential that short term concerns not be allowed to wash away the elements of the system that account for their mastery of their niche.
Such victories are inevitably hard won, and fruits of such victories should not be squandered. Those parts of the system that do what the system does well must be protected from fads, whims, and other such spasms of poor judgement.
Adaptability and Stability are forces that are in constant tension. On one hand, systems must be able to confront novelty without blinking.
On the other, they should not squander their patrimony on spur of the moment misadventures. Most interactions in a system tend to be within layers, or between adjacent layers. Individual layers tend to be about things that change at similar rates.
Things that change at different rates diverge. Differential rates of change encourage layers to emerge. Brand notes as well that occupational specialties emerge along with these layers. The rate at which things change shapes our organizations as well.