|
Looks cool!
Have thought about making an updated version of the ELF but with the new Harvard architecture it would not work so I would need to investigate other chips. But it would be fun.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.2.2 Beta I told my psychiatrist that I was hearing voices in my head. He said you don't have a psychiatrist!
|
|
|
|
|
It really depends on what you want to do. If you skip some of the oldfashioned stuff, you can build a very compact Elf with not very many parts. If you want nostalgia, then the Elf is also great: The original Elf from 1976.[^]
I'm currently working on such a board which is later intended to be the master processor that coordinates up to 8 worker processors. It does not have much I/O of its own, but for starters it is going to get a simple software controlled (bit banged) RS232 to hook up a notebook with terminal emulation.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with the Harvard architecture is that the flash and ram are in separate sections/partitions/memory space so to be able to program it dynamically is a problem. I would have to go to a chip with a different architecture. It can be done I just don't have the tools to do it.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.2.2 Beta I told my psychiatrist that I was hearing voices in my head. He said you don't have a psychiatrist!
|
|
|
|
|
An Apollo programmer once told me 2K is what they had to work with to get to the Moon and back. But hey, I do know how to strip a C "Hello World" program down to a 2K file... So, haven't we have progressed rather far in the last 45 years?
|
|
|
|
|
It's usability is about the same as a jaw-less zombie. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
We use it for Bugs, Change Requests, and Source Control. Works just fine for us. 
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Works just fine for us
Besides the klunkiness of the UI, it also takes VS forever to load and to do any operation, like adding new files, committing, etc., probably because the whole thing has to go through a proxy that connects to a server on the company's internal network 3000 miles away. But why it even has to do that, as compared to, say, Git or SVN -- make your changes, review your changes, including new files, and commit.
And I don't like integrated source control, I like to have options (meaning 3rd party separate apps) for exploring the repo, doing commits, merges, etc.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
My favourite "feature" is that deleting a file from the Solution Explorer then performing a checkin doesn't actually commit the delete; you have to open Team Explorer then check in there for the deletes to actually commit...crazy.
This also causes complete havok with NuGet which attempts to delete a package that doesn't get deleted so it can't be replaced. I find I have to checkout the whole kit and kaboodle, manually delete the packages, check everything back in, in Team Explorer so packages actually get deleted, then checkout once more, then add the new packages then perform another check in. 
|
|
|
|
|
...and if you rename or move that file before deleting it the check in comes to a screeching halt because *gasp* the file isn't there anymore. TFS gets itself into more existential conundrums than a nihilist week-long retreat.
I know MS. Clearly I'm not "holding it the right way".
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree. Whoever designed the UI for TFS online is a total moron. Completely confusing.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin Marois wrote: the UI for TFS online
The forms can be customized, by the way.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Straight outta the box it's a total mess. It's not at all intuitive. There's no clear indication where you are or how to do even the simplest things.
Every try deleting a project??? That took a bit of Googling to finally find the right page and then the right little drop down widget thingy.
Add a project.... and wait 10 minutes while it's created.. WTF could possibly take so long to create a few records in a DB somewhere?
Wanna give someone rights? LOL - Good luck trying that.
Then, after alllll that - you think I'm gonna "customize" it... hell I can't figure it out in its default configuration. Screw customizing.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Git, of course.
Or, Mercurial (Hg)
Visual SourceSafe should'a been your warning for TFS. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Git, of course
Sadly I'm forced to use the source control system that the company is using.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I used to wrap my directories in a git repository, but when I tried that here, Visual Studio saw that I had a git repository and would no longer show me the normal tfs team stuff and would only offer its git interface in the team tab...even Visual Studio knows that git is superior to tfs.
|
|
|
|
|
Have been using it quite happily for a number of years. Not the best nor the worst tool. However, I have persuaded management in a few places that it would be best if we employed a TFS consultant to set it up initially to suit our needs and then we could move on from there. That works well. Also depends on how complex you want/need to make the branching model and what other parts of it you need to use.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't like it either, but I have to use it at work. No performance issues though, and branching and merging is easy through VS.
|
|
|
|
|
We use it via the VS IDE as much as possible.
Online: what a debacle. Truly mind boggling.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Well i wanted to use TFS but then i saw TeamCity and fell in love 
Rules for the FOSW ![ ^]
if(this.signature != "")
{
MessageBox.Show("This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + signature);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("404-Signature not found");
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
S.L.O.O.O.W!
I gave up on it after three or four weeks.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Using Visual Studio Team Services here and it's great, naturally not using TFVC for source control but as VSTS supports Git why would you?
Back in the days of TFS 2010 then yeah, that sucked pretty badly. 2013 got much better but Team Services is where it's at for me.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
|
|
|
|
|
I setup TFS 2013-15 in our company, a complete switchover from our previous source control and bug tracking.
We use local TFS, not TFS online. For source control everything is instantanous, and we're using TFVC not Git (which has a local repo). I think it's fantastic and the whole company loves it.
Keep in mind we're all using Visual Studio 2015 so the integration is basically flawless.
|
|
|
|
|
same here TFS works great for us (using SCRUM) - also wrote some custom server-plugins and Tools - you can do a lot with the API - I like the "open" way of MS.
But I can understand the critics about TeamExplorer UI in VS...
|
|
|
|
|
We use our own networked instance and its been fine.
The only place I find it lacking is I'd like to be able to find in files without having to get latest.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
