|
|
I'm surprised nobody pointed out the double-negative:
Quote: it was unlikely that his programs ... were unlikely to be around in the year 9999
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Looking a bit into the past, a number of us old guys remember the "1970 problem". Prior to 1970, the year in most systems was stored as a single digit. This led to the same problem as Y2K ... but with a lot less publicity.
|
|
|
|
|
The Y2k problem arised from us using 2 digits to store the year.
A Y10k problem is imaginary.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I'd think that a Yi10k problem would be imaginary.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid it won't. In that era, makind is served by obscure COBOL and VB6.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I can't remember it turning out to be a problem, that is I can't remember any stories of any businesses suffering from the issue other than one vague story regarding baked beans going out of date.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I would have really liked to be a fly on the wall when that last revision by neil was posted
As an aside I'm spelunking through this code because despite being every bit as messy and nasty as the revision history would suggest it's fast. It was written to run on an old pentium, so it does what it does with no muss, and little overhead.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the timestamps are in order, even if the version numbers are not. This showcases the problems of relying on a programmer-assigned value for versioning.
(This actually looks like someone took code from an existing project and merged it into a new project while keeping the old version numbers.)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I was looking at the revision comments.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
At least neil did not say 'Wheeee' when he hopped off the landing pad.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
So no one else is going to sniff haughtily at the observation that only one of the revision notes ('removed fds "system") is even vaguely useful? The rest are either stupid, cute, or stupidly cute.
I farking hate that sort of crap.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
That is what happens when the source control system requires comments but no one actually reviews code.
|
|
|
|
|
File this one under Weird.
I just built a new project in .NET Core 6 using the command:
c:\> dotnet new console -o SuperConsole
This produced a basic console app that outputs "Hello, World!"
Then I took a look at Program.cs and noticed that the entirety of the code is:
Console.WriteLine("Hello, World!");
No Main Function!?!
Yep, that's right. There is no main function!!
Here's the link that explains it.
C# template changes in .NET 6 - .NET | Microsoft Docs[^]
Here's a bit of explanation from the site:
Explanation at link: You can look at the code for the new application and imagine that it contains the statements inside the Main method generated by earlier templates. You can add more statements to the program, just like you can add more statements to your Main method in the traditional style. You can even add functions. They're created as local functions nested inside the generated Main method.
I'ma no on that. Functions nested in Main? 
And it tells you that you can still add in the Main method the old way yourself and use it that way.
Is C# trying to be JavaScript?
|
|
|
|
|
This actually comes in handy for something I have planned for a new version of a tool I wrote for work. C# scripting support built into another DSL script.
|
|
|
|
|
Something that generates a separate EXE? So you don't have to generate the boiler-plate Main() method etc? Is that how it helps?
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of. The C# script would be compiled and executed without generating an .EXE on disk. It would all be in-memory. At least, that's the plan.
The "script" support for previous C# versions sucks as I recall. It's been a few years since I've dabbled with it.
|
|
|
|
|
I use dotnet-script. No real complaints from me.
Easy to install dotnet tool install -g dotnet-script
Easy scaffolding in VS Code (for debug support) dotnet script init
Easy to execute dotnet script <filename>
You can skip the second step if you just want to execute stuff with no debug support.
|
|
|
|
|
Not usable in my situation. I have to include any libraries in the resulting .EXE and distribute a single executable. Using any "dotnot" commands will not work for me.
|
|
|
|
|
I did that a few years ago. It makes a nice scripting utility. I had to figure out what shortcuts in the IDE were not in the compiler, but that did not take long. Mine worked out well, and I used it in a production app. I added in some safeguards, like making sure the C# script had not been tampered with (lots of opportunity for a disgruntled employee to alter an existing script to wreck havoc on production systems).
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm...
I'm pretty sure that AV solutions will go berserk on that....
Who the f*** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
now I'm curious... don't tell me you provide documentation for exceptions / custom rules 
Who the f*** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
|
|
|
|
|
I wish I could, but I've said as much as I can.
You know how it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
*NOW* I am curious..... that sounds a bit dirty and a bit black arts..... 
Who the f*** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
