|
raddevus wrote: Types are like u64, u32 (unsigned), i32 (integer) f32 (float). Made me laugh because it took me back to the days of hungarian notation[^]
I don't see a connection between the type names you listed and Hungarian notation. The type names are simple, short, and yet meaningfully describe the type.
Hungarian notation on the other hand attempts to encode information about the value's type in the value's name. Microsoft adopted this as a standard, which caused a fair amount of the programming community to follow suit.
Personally I don't like it. The cardinal complaint is that if the type changes, then the value name should change with it. The problems with Hungarian notation are worse than an inconvenience, however. To my mind Hungarian notation violates principles like implementation hiding, since it exposes implementation details in the names. I also find that the prefixes are visual clutter and make the code harder to read. I have a body of code I maintain with hundreds of classes, all of whose names are prefixed by "cls". Utterly worthless clutter.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
You mean you didn't like lpszWindowText (long ptr to null terminated string)??? 
Man, I know how to troll on CP, just mention Hungarian Notation. 
I think back in the day when people printed out code to do code reviews (hahahahaha as if anyone prints code now or does code reviews) that Hungarian was kind of nice cuz you knew the type when you looked at it. But I'm glad it's gone too. Put me down for "Happy with the present situation of variable names." Just thought it was funny that the intrinsic types are a slight throwback to Hungarian. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Man, I know how to troll on CP, just mention Hungarian Notation
No kidding. That's almost as much of a blitzkreig in the forums as a brace style debate.raddevus wrote: as if anyone prints code now
I will admit to occasionally printing code fragments. Most of the time lately it's to compare struct definitions against interface specifications. I've got one interface now that has these lovely C struct's in the interface spec. The only problem is the compiler being used forces 4 byte alignment, which isn't documented in the struct's. My corresponding definitions therefore have to insert pad bytes to make things line up.
<OldFartWarStory>
A few years ago the Infernal Revenue Service accused my company of padding their R&D costs, and they wanted proof of the work we'd done. Part of that proof was supposed to be a listing of all versions of all software produced over the preceding five years. Said source code, copied to CD's (this was a while ago), occupied around 120 discs. We make commercial ink-jet printing systems, so we're good at figuring out how much paper will be needed for a job. We estimated a paper listing of the contents of those discs would have required a little over 9 rolls of paper, at 40,000 feet per roll. When we asked them where they wanted the 9+ rolls delivered (each weighing several hundred pounds, and about 5 ft in diameter), they backed off. Just to be a smart ass, I did print out a directory listing of each of the discs. The directory listing alone was an entire case of office paper (2000 sheets).
Oh, and not to brag, but we could have printed those 9+ rolls of paper in about 1 day. We ain't your mama's DeskJet.
</OldFartWarStory>
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Like the best stories, the fact that it's true just adds to the fun.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: 1) builds binaries that need no additional runtime to be installed -- produces exe which runs natively.
not only this, but cross-compiling (for iOT for instance) is easier should you need it
|
|
|
|
|
... to a Unix shell.
You can hear the C.
I know the way out.
|
|
|
|
|
very funny.
I laughed out loud.
you can pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Send him to bournemouth, and bash him! 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
That’s a little bit Korn-y but I think you were just Bourne that way!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
But experiencing OpenVMS' DCL is BLISS.
|
|
|
|
|
DCL... ![Heart | [heart]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/love.gif)
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: But experiencing OpenVMS' DCL is BLISS.
Never thought if that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. It's way over BASIC knowledge... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
... a way to keep Microsoft Edge from opening to the start page? I have it set to continue last session, but it always opens to a new Google tab and immediately switches to it. I haven't found a way to disable that, but I must be overlooking something.
(Well, maybe not. Many months ago I noticed a bug where if I left Edge running, sometimes when I did something I never pinpointed in other windows (not Edge) a new Google tab would activate in Edge. A few times I found 5 or six of the buggers open without me having been in Edge. MS is failing to impress, although they seem to have fixed that bug, and you can finally use an extension to open a new tab to the front, thankfully.)
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: ... a way to keep Microsoft Edge from opening to the start page?
Will you accept "never opening it" as a solution? 
|
|
|
|
|
 
It is nice to do some things in, though. It isn't my primary browser, although it does feel smoother in many circumstances than my main browser and others I've used.
|
|
|
|
|
Switch to Brave?
Sorry, the devil made me say that. 
If you can keep your head while those about you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
I just switched to Brave -- I'm not kidding. Right after I read your post, I switched.
I switched for two reasons.
1) Brave still has [x] on each tab so you can quickly close a browser tab (firefox has removed that).
2) Brave still has arrows on scrollbar. FireFox just removed that.
See this snapshot for those features in Brave.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/5JfNl.png[^]
I'm running Ubuntu 20.04 desktop. Also, Brave has a sync feature (allows to share history and bookmarks across devices) so I'm happy with that too.
I'm now running it on my MOtorola G7 also. 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm running FireFox now and there's an x on each tab to close it - I just update to 89.0.1 but it was there prior to that.
One thing I didn't like in the most recent update is the new-tab "button" is hidden until you put the cursor on it - I'm almost used to not accidentally closing tabs (with that x you don't see).
As for scroll bars? I went to a vendor site and there were, top and bottom of scroll bar, arrows !
Suggestion - wash your screens.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I have it too... maybe is th linux version only?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I made a shortcut which opens about:blank . Done.
|
|
|
|
|
What is the command string line to paste into the shortcut?
|
|
|
|
|
I have:
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe" "about:blank"
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Unfortunately, Edge hates me and it doesn't work as it should for me.
I created a shortcut on my desktop and used that for the link. When I double-clicked it, Edge opened up. All the old tabs were there, and the 'about::blank' page also got added to the tabs. Then Edge opened me up to a bare google search page! It figures you will always want to search for something when you first open it, but that's not what I want! I haven't been able to find a place to disable that 'feature.' 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
