|
Ok. I know I read the article; and I get 80-90% of my programming news from here; so it's my default I know I saw this somewhere assumption.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
[^]Quote: According to new research from Chainalysis, a digital forensics firm that studies the bitcoin blockchain, 3.79 million bitcoins are already gone for good based on a high estimate—and 2.78 million based on a low one. Those numbers imply 17% to 23% of existing bitcoins, which are today worth around $8,500 each, are lost.
Quote: Finally, there’s the question of what became of the bitcoins belonging to Satoshi, the pseudonymous creator of the crypto-currency, who has not been not been heard from since 2011. Chainalysis says wallets associated with Satoshi represent about 1 million bitcoins (the company will provide a more specific figure later this year), and that its model assumes that those coins—which date from a time when it was easy to mine 50 bitcoin with a laptop—are gone forever. This assumption is a big one and, if it proves to be incorrect, the number of circulating bitcoins could suddenly increase significantly and deliver a shock to the market.
«While I complain of being able to see only a shadow of the past, I may be insensitive to reality as it is now, since I'm not at a stage of development where I'm capable of seeing it.» Claude Levi-Strauss (Tristes Tropiques, 1955)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The company says hackers stole email addresses and passwords of 1.7 million users. Is that the one all the kids are using these days? I can't keep track of 'cool' anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
People sign up for sharing an image with public? I think I have used this site and there was either no need to sign up or I just entered something random and they let me in.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK You need to sign up to be part of the commentariat there.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
StackOverflow / stackexchange sites use imgur when you paste an image in it will automatically add the image to imgur and generate a link. Maybe those are tied to SO/SE. It's a nice system though because it is quite seamless -- no need to get an imgur login.
|
|
|
|
|
Correct, anyone can post; you only need an account to comment and maybe to expose the post to the imgur commentariat (or at least I don't recall ever seeing a post from any flavor 'anonymous' show up on the main page).
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Torvalds explains why he gets angry with security people. People like Linus Torvalds?
Scorched Earth policies never seem to work in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
While he has a point, I can't help but think his advice for home security would be; let the burglar in so we can see what he wanted to steal. (Heck, let him steal and fence it so we can find out how much it's worth.)
|
|
|
|
|
Software is losing its magic. We simply demand too much from the current approaches. Whatever you've decided to do
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: We simply demand too much from the current approaches.
Indeed, we demand such trivial things as clarity, consistency, transparency re breaking changes, and security issues.
How easily we forget we are micro-serfs, and lucky to get scraps from the Masters' table !
«While I complain of being able to see only a shadow of the past, I may be insensitive to reality as it is now, since I'm not at a stage of development where I'm capable of seeing it.» Claude Levi-Strauss (Tristes Tropiques, 1955)
|
|
|
|
|
I just deleted all the code in my current project and added a single file with the sentence;
"Process this file, returning all pertinent data and then write that data to a Json file."
It didn't work.
(Why didn't he just write his real intention; "I want a magic wand.")
|
|
|
|
|
For loops used to be the defacto way to process collections. It's time to forget them. I've replaced all mine with a collection of goto statements
|
|
|
|
|
Academic drivel; here in the real world, code is pragmatic.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I kind of struggle with anyone that tells me that this is more readable than a for loop:
const result = array
.filter(isPrime)
.map((e, i, a) => i > 0 ? e * (e - a[i - 1]) : e)
.filter((e, i, a) => i >= a.length - 10)
.reduce((a, e) => a + e, 0);
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
But it's computationally provably correct... 
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
And it's all backed by six for loops.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here, although I felt the same way about a lot of Linq for the first year or so I was using it. Assuming I got to the point where I did get the syntax readily, I could see it going above the nasty looking for loops in the later examples.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I think you make a very good point that part of the reason that we find ye olde for loop a lot easier to read than a LINQ statement is that we've been using them for an awful lot longer and if there is a point where a complex LINQ statement becomes instantly readable, I'm yet to reach it. But all the same, readability just isn't the first word that springs to mind when extolling the many genuine advantages of LINQ.
Looking through my own code, I definitely use significantly fewer loops than I did even a couple of years ago but there are times when I employ a for loop for the simple reason that it's the only way to make the code readable without a very long explanatory comment block.
And therein lies my narkiness with the article - readability is a massively important aspect of code - and he's kind of pushing an imaginary readability bonus somewhere where it really doesn't exist just to advance an argument that really could stand up far better on its genuine merits.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
True enough. Really complicated stuff I still generally do with for/foreach loops; but Linq has replaced a lot of my more basic ones. Especially for things like filtering data I find Linqs 1/2 liners to be more natural than the equivalent 3-6 line loop.
I often do take advantage of resharpers foreach-linq conversion tool. At the edge of my comfort range I often find Linq easier to read and make minor updates but harder to initially write; and even for more complex cases where my reaction to the output Linq is 'Oh ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) no' seeing the conversions between the two and using my knowledge of the former to decipher the latter has helped me learn Linq a lot.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Resharper helped me an awful lot in my earlier days with it - still does from time to time.
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
for loops are the best loops.
|
|
|
|
|
Ditch loops for code that does all the looping for you.
|
|
|
|
|
It seemed like we had defeated electronic junk mail. Then the spammers rose from the dead. Just in case you hadn't noticed
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
