|
I was recently approached by a company that wanted a java developer. I like to think they were not talking applets. It's academic anyway as I turned it down.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
My Saturday job requires using a web application that still uses good old Classic ASP...and it only works correctly in IE Compatibility Mode! They've been harping about an update for at least 5 years...not holding my breath.
At work, I'm migrating the last couple of Classic ASP sites I have left in preparation for a new server where I'd like avoid legacy issues. We also still use Flash for a dashboard in one of our web applications, though the horrible tool  that was used to create it did not make the cut a few years back when I upgraded workstations.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: good old Classic ASP...and it only works correctly in IE Compatibility Mode!
You poor soul!!! Well then, JSF is not seeming so bad after all 
On the other hand, you have different fingers. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you're working for the VA. 
|
|
|
|
|
Once I had to update my business address and the process was to use the CD that came when I register business number and that loads applet in the browser and that suppose to allow you to update your address. I could not for life of me get it to work. In this day and age this is the process to update business address. After wasting hours I gave up. So yes there are dark places out there that still uses this thing.
Zen and the art of software maintenance : rm -rf *
Maths is like love : a simple idea but it can get complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow 
On the other hand, you have different fingers. - Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
I'm so sorry to hear that, but remember that tomorrow is another day. Don't let it ruin your entire day. 
|
|
|
|
|
Client[] clients = Enumerable.Repeat(new Client(), 10).ToArray();
Hey Marc, why are all the client names the same as the last one???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worse than that, this problem would most likely not have occurred when using for loops, since the most natural way to write it is the correct way.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: since the most natural way to write it is the correct way. |
Hmmm. Writing:
Client[] clients = new Client[10];
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
clients[i]=new Client();
}
Is painful to look at IMO.
Client[] clients = CreateArrayOf(()=>new Client(), 10);
or:
Client[] clients = CreateArrayOf<Client>(10);
or even:
Client[] clients = 10.CreateArrayOf<Client>();
is a lot better, IMO.
Then again:
Client[] clients = CreateClients(10);
would have at least hidden any ugly for loop.
|
|
|
|
|
All options good.. except for the hard-coded '10'; really dislike hard-coding any values.
|
|
|
|
|
The 10 was just to make the example simpler
|
|
|
|
|
Understood... but I see FAR too many examples where it isn't to 'make the example simpler', rather, it's the actual code.
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: rather, it's the actual code.
Yeah, I've seen that, written that kind of stuff too.  In this case, "10" is the actually some number of child nodes in an XML path, which is validated elsewhere for correctness.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised that one's even legal C#. It looks like the sort of dumpsterfire you'd see in frufru bogotyped scripting languages.
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
|
|
|
|
|
RickZeeland wrote: This seems to be about the same problem
Yeah. I should have realized the problem because I wasn't required to use a lambda. Enumerable.Repeat(()=>new Client(), 10); would be the expected syntax.
RickZeeland wrote: But I also read that using for loops is a lot faster than using Linq ...
Meh. For a service that gets called once a day and creates at most 1 to maybe 5 instances, I don't really care. The real travesty IMO is the ToArray() call because the web service interface where this gets assigned requires an array.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Hey Marc, why are all the client names the same as the last one???
Because it does what it says on the tin!
Possibly a The Weird and The Wonderful[^] candidate?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly a The Weird and The Wonderful[^] candidate?
 Not firing on all cylinders today (but that piece of code was written a few weeks ago.)
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Not firing on all cylinders today
Some days cylinders need a break, let them be cubes!
Common sense is admitting there is cause and effect and that you can exert some control over what you understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Client[] clients = new int[10].Select(i => new Client()).ToArray();
One line of code - clear and easy. 
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: One line of code - clear and easy.
Hah! Forgot about that version.
OT - Funny you're in Columbus OH. I had a remote gig for a couple years with a company, Emergitech (they got bought out last year, I think) that located in Columbus. Fun times!
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I had a remote gig for a couple years with a company, Emergitech (they got bought out last year, I think) that located in Columbus. Fun times!
Interesting. I don't believe I've heard of them. Their website redirects to a company that seems to be selling a crime database.
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: that seems to be selling a crime database.
Well, not really a crime database, more a records management database, the idea being that the data on, say, individuals in a household, is available to everyone, from the police to the emergency responders, so people know what to expect in terms of occupants and possible past criminal records, medical conditions, prior incidents, and so forth. Of course, one of the amusing things about all this stuff was that each county (count-ee, not countr-ee) has their own database system, and of course sharing data across counties is not just a technical challenge but more often than not, a political one. Given the number of counties in a state, it gets ridiculous. 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
