I believe the Mormons would say, "your bible is wrong." I also believe that's not uncommon, to prefer various slightly-different translations or interpretations of the bible.
There's a billboard (or used to be, at least) on SR-201 around here that advertises a support group or club or something for athiests. They meet Sunday mornings. The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
If you believe the "words" came from a "magic rock", then it shouldn't be a large leap to believe that they came from a divine being. If you don't, then "words of a magic rock" shouldn't be any more crazy than "words of a stone tablet" (Moses) or "words of a cave" (Mohammed).
If you don't believe any of that, then it's all just the crazy imaginings of the loony religious. I don't get why one is more crazy than the other.
I've worked as a programmer for about 13 years now, part of it for a VERY high-profile investment bank (I left there after only staying a short while, because the workplace was even more soul-crushing than you might imagine), and my college experience consists of 1 CLEP test, an AP test or two, and about two quarters.
There's a setting in the registry to disable the all-caps thing. I haven't tried it.
As for the colors, MS released an extension ("Visual Studio 2012 Color Theme Editor") that can be used to change the theme. It comes with various new ghastly themes, along with "Blue" which looks pretty much like VS2010.
Someone said this when Google went IPO. There's only three reasons to buy stock:
1) because you want a say in the running of the company (the shares of Google that were available were all non-voting shares) 2) because the stock pays dividends (Google said their shares never would) 3) because you're gambling
If you're into gambling, then by all means, gamble. Just don't be surprised if the house wins.
If headers are required for the features you list to work, then how does C# do it? How does Java do it? How does Perl do it? How does Python do it? I guess either they don't have compile-time error checking, or they're "absurd".
of course the coder has to generate the WSDL - you're not suggesting you write a bunch of methods and expect the system to write your definitions for you?! I know there are systems that do this - but you still have to decorate your methods with the appropriate codes to make the generator work correctly.
Yes, that's exactly what I expect. I currently write code in C#, and I use WCF for my SOAP webservices, so my "decorations" consist of [ServiceContract] on the class and [OperationContract] on each method that is part of the service. I've never, ever, in my entire life, hand-coded a WSDL.
I don't write in Java either, but I wasn't necessarily talking about Java. Doing things the "Java" way certainly requires a lot of boilerplate, but if the "Java" way sucks, there's noone holding a gun to your head...
Except that the programmer doesn't (generally) have to create and manage the WSDL file, it's generated on-demand by the framework or toolkit in use. If the header files were generated automatically behind the scenes, and included where necessary all invisibly, then they'd be great.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Having the "common definitions" inside a class or outside a class is orthogonal to requiring header files. Why can't "common definitions" simply be derived from the source files, as they are in pretty much all "modern" languages?
What about the D programming language? Object-oriented, memory management, C ABI compatible, compiles down to native code and requires no runtime components, I don't believe. There's a GCC-based compiler, an LLVM-based compiler, and the reference implementation.
If the limiting factor to your programming productivity is the speed of your typing, then you either need to A) use more than one finger to type, or B) write more interesting programs.
I've got three boys, all circumcised. None of them were done by a urologist (they were done by the pediatrician), and none of them were done under general anesthesia.
Nowdays, I guess the common method isn't really even considered surgery. They clamp some sort of device on there, and the foreskin falls off after some time. Never seen that method done, but I'm told that all the cool doctors are doing it that way now.
No, it's not part of the "TCP/IP implementation" either, unless you include higher level application protocols (such as DNS) in that "implementation". Let's say, "networking stack", because that would be, you know, correct.
Microsoft can't "kill the hosts file off" because the behaviour is part of the IP specification (defined in the RFC's)
Uh, the IP specification doesn't say anything about the hosts file, because the IP specification doesn't specify how to map names to addresses. In fact, it specifically says:
It is the task of higher level (i.e., host-to-host or application) protocols to make the mapping from names to addresses.
I think he meant the technique of redirecting certain names to (f.e.) 127.0.0.1 using the hosts file as an ad-blocking tool was an unsupported hack. The original purpose of the hosts file certainly didn't include ad-blocking, but to say "unsupported" is a stretch.
Slashdot Mirror
Why isn't "solar dried" counted as "chemical processing"? It's a chemical process going on there, after all.
Meanwhile solutions developed with Standard C/C++, Java, etc get better tools and there are code changes required to maintain them are far more minor.
We call that "platform stagnation". Unless, of course, the platform is already perfect and cannot be further improved.
I believe the Mormons would say, "your bible is wrong." I also believe that's not uncommon, to prefer various slightly-different translations or interpretations of the bible.
There's a billboard (or used to be, at least) on SR-201 around here that advertises a support group or club or something for athiests. They meet Sunday mornings. The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
They call that one Scientology.
Hint: just because you like guns, or don't agree with the President, doesn't make you batshit crazy.
No, but I fully intend to go batshit crazy someday, and I plan to have lots of guns by the time I get there. Simple correlation? Who can say?
If you believe the "words" came from a "magic rock", then it shouldn't be a large leap to believe that they came from a divine being. If you don't, then "words of a magic rock" shouldn't be any more crazy than "words of a stone tablet" (Moses) or "words of a cave" (Mohammed).
If you don't believe any of that, then it's all just the crazy imaginings of the loony religious. I don't get why one is more crazy than the other.
I've worked as a programmer for about 13 years now, part of it for a VERY high-profile investment bank (I left there after only staying a short while, because the workplace was even more soul-crushing than you might imagine), and my college experience consists of 1 CLEP test, an AP test or two, and about two quarters.
Your experience isn't consistent with mine.
There's a setting in the registry to disable the all-caps thing. I haven't tried it.
As for the colors, MS released an extension ("Visual Studio 2012 Color Theme Editor") that can be used to change the theme. It comes with various new ghastly themes, along with "Blue" which looks pretty much like VS2010.
I used to think I might be a libertarian, until I learned that many of them believe that there should be no such thing as personal property. Bleh.
Someone said this when Google went IPO. There's only three reasons to buy stock:
1) because you want a say in the running of the company (the shares of Google that were available were all non-voting shares)
2) because the stock pays dividends (Google said their shares never would)
3) because you're gambling
If you're into gambling, then by all means, gamble. Just don't be surprised if the house wins.
As you've noticed, comments should explain WHY something was done. The code itself should explain WHAT is being done.
If headers are required for the features you list to work, then how does C# do it? How does Java do it? How does Perl do it? How does Python do it? I guess either they don't have compile-time error checking, or they're "absurd".
of course the coder has to generate the WSDL - you're not suggesting you write a bunch of methods and expect the system to write your definitions for you?! I know there are systems that do this - but you still have to decorate your methods with the appropriate codes to make the generator work correctly.
Yes, that's exactly what I expect. I currently write code in C#, and I use WCF for my SOAP webservices, so my "decorations" consist of [ServiceContract] on the class and [OperationContract] on each method that is part of the service. I've never, ever, in my entire life, hand-coded a WSDL.
I don't write in Java either, but I wasn't necessarily talking about Java. Doing things the "Java" way certainly requires a lot of boilerplate, but if the "Java" way sucks, there's noone holding a gun to your head...
What sort of software do you write?
Except that the programmer doesn't (generally) have to create and manage the WSDL file, it's generated on-demand by the framework or toolkit in use. If the header files were generated automatically behind the scenes, and included where necessary all invisibly, then they'd be great.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Having the "common definitions" inside a class or outside a class is orthogonal to requiring header files. Why can't "common definitions" simply be derived from the source files, as they are in pretty much all "modern" languages?
What about the D programming language? Object-oriented, memory management, C ABI compatible, compiles down to native code and requires no runtime components, I don't believe. There's a GCC-based compiler, an LLVM-based compiler, and the reference implementation.
Amen to that.
If the limiting factor to your programming productivity is the speed of your typing, then you either need to A) use more than one finger to type, or B) write more interesting programs.
I've got three boys, all circumcised. None of them were done by a urologist (they were done by the pediatrician), and none of them were done under general anesthesia.
Nowdays, I guess the common method isn't really even considered surgery. They clamp some sort of device on there, and the foreskin falls off after some time. Never seen that method done, but I'm told that all the cool doctors are doing it that way now.
No, it's not part of the "TCP/IP implementation" either, unless you include higher level application protocols (such as DNS) in that "implementation". Let's say, "networking stack", because that would be, you know, correct.
Microsoft can't "kill the hosts file off" because the behaviour is part of the IP specification (defined in the RFC's)
Uh, the IP specification doesn't say anything about the hosts file, because the IP specification doesn't specify how to map names to addresses. In fact, it specifically says:
I think he meant the technique of redirecting certain names to (f.e.) 127.0.0.1 using the hosts file as an ad-blocking tool was an unsupported hack. The original purpose of the hosts file certainly didn't include ad-blocking, but to say "unsupported" is a stretch.