New Book Teardown #3: Learning The Art of Electronics: A Hands-On Lab Course (2016) | In The Lab

This post is part of my video blog and you can find more information about this video on this show’s homepage which is here.

You can support this channel on Patreon: patreon.com/JohnElliotV

Silly Job Title: Master Planner

This video is part of the New Book Teardown feature of my video blog.

In this video I take a look at Learning the Art of Electronics: A Hands-On Lab Course by Thomas C. Hayes and Paul Horowitz published in 2016. The book has 1,140 pages and is a companion to The Art of Electronics 3rd Edition.

Some notes about things of interest we noticed in the book:

Thanks very much for watching! And please remember to hit like and subscribe!


Following is a product I use picked at random from my collection which may appear in my videos. Clicking through on this to find and click on the green affiliate links before purchasing from eBay or AliExpress is a great way to support the channel at no cost to you. Thanks!

Yum Cha Blue SpudgersThis is an image of the product.

Let’s go shopping!

The Brain User’s Handbook: A Neuroscience-inspired Guide to Peace of Mind

I am reading The Brain User’s Handbook: A Neuroscience-inspired Guide to Peace of Mind which has this awesome image I want to share:


An imagined interaction between a human baby and a young LLM in training. They are sharing impressions about the endeavor of modeling the world from scratch. Image generated with DALLE-3 via ChatGPT

Dependency Injection in MediaWiki

Today I read the documentation for how Dependency Injection is done in MediaWiki.

I had a few small nits to pick (such as their statement that services should be stateless) but… fair enough.

For myself I don’t usually use Dependency Injection and a Service Container, instead I prefer the Service Locator pattern which I find is simpler and more economical to use, especially in PHP where there is a single process per request.

Extreme late binding

There’s a famous quote from Alan Kay that you will see bandied about:

OOP to me means only messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things.

I think I agree with him, but I often find myself wondering quite what he meant by “extreme late-binding”. I suspect he means that object instances can redefine stuff they inherited from their concrete class. If your OOP platform doesn’t support that, you can emulate it with data and API.

On the value of foreign key constraints

Here is something I would like to demo regarding foreign key constraints.

This regards what type of errors foreign key constraints can (and can’t!) save you from.

Occasionally you hear developers say how important foreign key constraints are and how foreign key constraints saved them from some bug. That might all seem well and good but when you think it through if a foreign key constraint saved you from a bug it also might very well just have been luck that saved you and the thing that went wrong might have gone wrong another way and have gone undetected as database corruption and potential accidental data disclosure to an incorrect entity.

To set the scene let’s use some schema/data from what we were talking about earlier:

create table t_skinny_customer (
  customer_id bigint not null primary key,
  customer_name varchar(255) not null,
  customer_record_created_on timestamp default current_timestamp,
  customer_record_updated_on timestamp default current_timestamp on update current_timestamp
);

create table t_skinny_customer_phone (
  customer_phone_id bigint not null primary key,
  customer_id bigint not null references t_skinny_customer( customer_id ) on delete cascade,
  phone_number varchar(255) not null,
  phone_type enum( 'phone', 'tollfree', 'mobile' ) not null default 'phone',
  phone_type_order tinyint unsigned not null default 0,
  phone_record_created_on timestamp default current_timestamp,
  phone_record_updated_on timestamp default current_timestamp on update current_timestamp
);

insert into t_skinny_customer (
  customer_id,
  customer_name
)
values (
  1,
  'John Doe'
), (
  2,
  'Jane Doe'
);

insert into t_skinny_customer_phone (
  customer_phone_id,
  customer_id,
  phone_number,
  phone_type,
  phone_type_order
)
values (
  11,
  1,
  '123-456-7890',
  'phone',
  1
), (
  21,
  2,
  '123-456-7894',
  'phone',
  1
);

Then let’s run this code:

    $stmt = $pdo->prepare("
      update
        t_skinny_customer_phone
      set
        customer_id = :customer_id
      where
        customer_phone_id = :phone_id
    ");

    try {

      $stmt->execute([
        'customer_id' => 3,
        'phone_id' => 11,
      ]);

      assert( false );

    }
    catch ( PDOException $ex ) {

      // 2024-02-13 jj5 - foreign key constraint saved the day!

      assert(
        0 === strpos(
          $ex->getMessage(),
          'SQLSTATE[23000]: Integrity constraint violation: 1452 Cannot add or update a child row: a foreign key constraint fails'
        )
      );

    }

    $stmt->execute([
      'customer_id' => 2,
      'phone_id' => 11,
    ]);

    // 2024-02-13 jj5 - ... whoops! what we've done here is switch
    // one of John Doe's phone numbers to be one of Jane Doe's
    // phone numbers. The foreign key constraint is of no value in
    // detecting this type of data corruption.

Now I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have foreign key constraints. I’m just pointing out that if you do have foreign key constraints and you’re relying on them for “referential integrity” your door may be open for all manner of bugs (and exploits).

That your foreign key points to an actual record doesn’t necessarily imply that your foreign key points to a correct record.