|
I had a not to dissimilar discussion with Epson.
All of their packaging claim they get the "Eco Green Technology Company Award" time and time again.
Yet when the nozzles gunked up on my BX300X multifunction printer, and it could no longer print, the Scanner and Fax machine on it where also disabled.
When I contacted Epson to ask if there was a way to still use the Scanner and Fax I was told point blank by their support staff that, that was the way it worked, now be a good boy throw the old out and buy a new one....
They where NOT AMUSED when I republished everything their support folks had told me on twitter, and even threatened to sue me if I didn't remove it, but I stood firm, left it there, and eventually it vanished from sight.
I'm pleased to say however, that as of the beginning of this year, I actually managed to get the scanner and fax working again, it turns out the code to disable it was in Epson's own scanner software, I've since found out that the Open Source "NAPS2" scanner software runs perfectly well on windows, and I now have 3 A4 flat bed scanners, my old Epson BX300 an even older Epson before that (That had the same problem) and the HP Laser jet multi function I purchased to replace the 2 old Epsons.
|
|
|
|
|
I am still working on the configuration of my LexMark fax machine(printing and copying are fine). I can not send out Fax and it always signals me that it is not connected...
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Southmountain wrote: now it works and hope it will work for another 10 years
So, this is not OOP.
|
|
|
|
|
this is the effect of using OOP
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, that's "component-based" (programming): as in VB 6.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
if you regard this component has a function and an interface, it may be a class...
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
At the risk of subjecting you all to 9gag, this is funny : https://9gag.com/gag/aMK72BP[^]
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I think that sentence violates the Geneva Convention.
|
|
|
|
|
That's cold man.
Repo Man
|
|
|
|
|
And that's when the crime rate dropped to 0
|
|
|
|
|
So if you get caught committing a crime in Finland, they give you the skills to do a better job next time?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Clean Code: I like it, at least parts of it.
But now I just recognized that some co workers interprets this, that it is enough having their code clean formatted text whise (indentation etc.)
Can be that I'm wrong, but I think they have missed the point
modified 4-Sep-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Don't complain...
they could have missed it anyways and leave it unproperly formated.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Spot on ... upvoted
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Are they putting lipstick on a pig?
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
I think more of dressing the (code) monkey with silk...
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I recently saw some code in which the "o" was left out of a variable named "count", sooo...
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately much of our field is littered with terms like "clean code", "Agile", "SOLID" but without concrete instructions, if you will, on how to implement those concepts. And lacking code reviews...and lacking people who know what they are doing though they claim they know...it's a mad mad world.
I still have no idea how to explain SOLID to a junior developer (heck, or a senior developer) and I still have no idea who the heck Liskov is/was.
[edit]OMG. I thought it was guy! Barbara Liskov - Wikipedia[^] [/edit]
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Unfortunately much of our field is littered with terms like "clean code", "Agile", "SOLID"
And "readability".
Marc Clifton wrote: I still have no idea who the heck Liskov is/was.
I looked for actual studies on "readability" at one time. There must be some given how much developers use that term to justify almost anything. There was one study that involved fonts used in marketing materials (and it was probably printed marketing also.) As I recall the conclusion was that 4 or fewer fonts should be used. Nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: 4 or fewer fonts
:cough: typefaces :cough:
But to stay off-topic, yes, so few web designers seem to have any graphic design education.
|
|
|
|
|
Readability is actually really important.
The reason you can't find studies on it is that it varies by language, norms, code history, etc.
I mean, sure, there are *some things* that are simply unreadable no matter what, but most often readability is highly subjective and team-based.
Making hard and fast rules about it is very impractical and verging - in my opinion - on impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
DeerBear wrote: The reason you can't find studies on it is that it varies by language, norms, code history, etc.
Nope.
The reason you can't find any studies on it is because one needs to first be able to measure something to do a study.
You can't declare that something is 'better' if you cannot define how to measure that it is so.
Would you sign a contract that said your code must be 'better' or you don't get paid unless the contract specifically stated how that would be measured?
|
|
|
|
|
Most readability responses are along the lines of:
- "They don't RTFM, so why write a good one",
- "Comments in code is bad",
- "I'm not good at (variable) naming".
Nothing to read. Unplanned code obsolescence!
Thank goodness(?) for Emoji's.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilipOakley wrote: Thank goodness(?) for Emoji's
Especially this one: 💩
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|