|
Well I found a word, using an anagram solver, that I've never heard of and even now I'm not sure if it makes sense, so I'll stay silent as I certainly don't think I've "solved it" even if correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds wrong - with my English it is very unlikely that you never heard of it...
“Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm,
Doesn't look like an anagram. A vital part is an organ. The verb suffix ize could mean 'like'.
Changing the order like vital part (8)
Changing the order = definition
like = ize
vital part = organ Organize
If I'm right then the clue is malformed. Hopefully I'm wrong, I don't want to be the setter.
|
|
|
|
|
I was going on the "part" meaning "an anagram of some of the letter of" and I'm delighted if this is way off beam! Yours sounds a lot better.
|
|
|
|
|
As I told - my English has some flows... more than some...
But your answer gives you only the second place... Which means that you are up tomorrow if nobody else solves it
“Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
|
|
|
|
|
I think you mean flaws
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
|
A real long shot.....
How about Reversed = changing the order
like = re
vital part - verse
to make it 8 letters long - d
|
|
|
|
|
Nope...
“Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 341 3/6
🟩⬜⬜🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟨🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 341 3/6
🟨⬜⬜🟩🟨
⬜🟨🟨🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 341 2/6
🟩⬜🟨⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Had a good first guess
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 341 3/6
🟨⬛⬛🟩⬛
⬛⬛🟨🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
5/6
🟨⬜🟨⬜🟨
🟨🟨🟨⬜🟨
🟨🟨🟨🟨⬜
⬜🟨🟨🟩🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
I had 4 letters at the second try but couldn anagram them for the life of me.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 341 5/6*
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟩
🟨⬜🟨⬜🟩
⬜🟨⬜🟨🟩
⬜🟨🟩🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 341 5/6
⬜⬜⬜⬜🟨
🟩⬜⬜⬜🟨
🟨⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩⬜🟨🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 341 3/6
🟩⬛⬛⬛⬛
🟩⬛🟨⬛🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 341 3/6
🟨🟨🟨⬛🟨
⬛🟨🟨🟨🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 341 3/6*
🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜
🟩🟨⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
In 2008 or something, Microsoft had some "Enterprise Block" demo or some other codename, for a MEF driven IoC/DI thing for desktop app.
I never saw more confusing app. We used the pattern a bit and we got lost and confused in our own small codebase all the time.
IoC has continued but has become less confusing I reckon. At my previous work (WebDev) we had simple IoC (MS unity container) with constructor injection (typical .NET Core / MVC stuff). And even my own home made projects, as someone who unapologetically despise IoC/DI, has little bit of it (with my own container thingy, anyway).
I can't quite put the finger on it, but IoC/DI as it is used today seems simpler to understand than how it was in those 2008 earlier iterations I think....
To come to my point, the app I am working on at work remind me of those earlier 2008 IoC samples... It's so bloody confusing all the time. I can't quite put my finger on it though. It all seem reasonable in isolation...
Not sure what's my point here. What's your thinking on the evolution of IoC/DI in the last 15 years perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
This month is my 40th anniversary developing frameworks--the term didn't even exist back then--so IoC happens naturally. But there's already enough boilerplate without this DI rubbish. I suppose I'd use it if the value was obvious in some situation, but so far I haven't felt compelled--or maybe have done it without realizing! I don't ascribe much value to unit tests, greatly preferring integration and regression tests, so DI does nothing for me on that front. Frameworks have to be tested using serious applications; anything less just scratches the surface and proves little.
|
|
|
|
|
DI/IOCs[^]
IOC and DI are completely foreign to me. I guess I am too old school. If I interpret these concepts its seems that the libraries are directing the program flow. Sort of like DLL's on steroids. I guess I need to do some more reading. Any suggestions for a newbie to these concepts.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
A framework is very different from a library. A library has lots of things that can generally be used on their own, like the C++ STL. A framework is a sketch for how to implement an application. Developers then plug in the pieces that contain the application logic, which the framework glues together. A library will be useful to a broader range of applications, whereas a framework is usually intended for a particular domain.
|
|
|
|
|
Got it. I need to better understand frameworks. Thanx so much.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
A library is something you can use.
A framework is something that uses you!
|
|
|
|