Who want's to only speak French when there is are a myriad of ways to better describe the universe, which French falls far short.
The world changes, the way we view the world changes, and necessarily so does the way we describe it.
While I know that traditionally 1KB is 1024 byte, I've always thought of it as 1000 bytes unless I need to perform some computation which I then use 1024.
I've been doing this for 30 years.
Just another example of "What is funny for me must be funny for you" syndrome. Too bad, because I'm sure there are much better examples of idiot correspondence in the mailbag.
Strike one. If #2 is as uninteresting and this one, I'll be using the gray matter filter in the future.
At my shop there is a convention (for some projects) of one routine/function per source file with the source file named from the routine name. The reasoning is that you can find the source file easier given a function name. This coding standard was implemented over 25 years ago for FORTRAN and SIMSCRIPT projects. The principal engineer tries to enforce this coding standard on contemporary language projects, and can't understand why the convention is a really bad coding standard for C, C++, Java, or any other modern languages (not to mention impossible to follow for object oriented languages) .
Some of us have some really goofy coding standards to deal with (or simply ignore).
Slashdot Mirror
Who want's to only speak French when there is are a myriad of ways to better describe the universe, which French falls far short.
The world changes, the way we view the world changes, and necessarily so does the way we describe it.
While I know that traditionally 1KB is 1024 byte, I've always thought of it as 1000 bytes unless I need to perform some computation which I then use 1024. I've been doing this for 30 years.
I don't see an issue here.
Thank the maker that I won't live to see it.
Just another example of "What is funny for me must be funny for you" syndrome. Too bad, because I'm sure there are much better examples of idiot correspondence in the mailbag. Strike one. If #2 is as uninteresting and this one, I'll be using the gray matter filter in the future.
This is spooky. It sounds like we work for the same company with the same uninitiated programmers.
At my shop there is a convention (for some projects) of one routine/function per source file with the source file named from the routine name. The reasoning is that you can find the source file easier given a function name. This coding standard was implemented over 25 years ago for FORTRAN and SIMSCRIPT projects. The principal engineer tries to enforce this coding standard on contemporary language projects, and can't understand why the convention is a really bad coding standard for C, C++, Java, or any other modern languages (not to mention impossible to follow for object oriented languages) . Some of us have some really goofy coding standards to deal with (or simply ignore).