|
Hi Richard,
Perhaps I am not understanding your comment: imho, this issue arises not at the level of app NameSpace scope, but only when:
1) the WinForm Project references both System.Drawing, and (after installing windowsbase.dll) System,Windows ... and prefaces the app NameSpace with the appropriate using statements.
2) any use of the "unqualified" names 'Point, or, 'Size will then cause compile time errors.
I think I may have made a finer distinction than necessary between using invocations, and app namespaces.
cheers, Bill
p.s. long ago, when I had my fifteen minutes of fame in the PostScript domain, I really enjoyed the explicit use of a Stack of Dictionaries to determine semantic meaning in context, and the parallel Stack of global Graphic States you could manipulate with 'gsave, 'grstore, etc. [^] 
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
modified 2-Sep-21 5:31am.
|
|
|
|
|
My Point was that this is normal; if two classes in different namespaces have the same name, and you use both namespaces, then you'll end up with ambiguous references.
If you start with a class that uses System.Drawing and has unqualified references to Point and Size, then the simplest option is to add aliases for the System.Windows types, and use those in the new code you're writing.
It's slightly annoying, but there are only so many words you can use to describe a class that represents a point or a size. If every new library that exposes those concepts had to come up with a different word for the same concept, that would be a worse outcome than having to alias the types in the unusual places where both are used.
But at least the types are in different namespaces, so you don't need to mess around with extern aliases for the assemblies.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
It would be interesting to know if this issue came up in defining the windowsbase.dll code. I'd wager 60/40 odds it is something slipped through the cracksRichard Deeming wrote: It's slightly annoying, but there are only so many words you can use to describe a class that represents a point or a size. If every new library that exposes those concepts had to come up with a different word for the same concept, that would be a worse outcome than having to alias the types in the unusual places where both are used.
I must respectfully disagree: if they go to the trouble of using 'Rect instead of 'Rectangle, why re-use 'Point, and 'Size, and cause an unnecessary work-around ? For me, that is the worst outcome Richard Deeming wrote: If you start with a class that uses System.Drawing and has unqualified references to Point and Size, then the simplest option is to add aliases for the System.Windows types, and use those in the new code you're writing.
That's exactly what the work-around I show in my first post does, and, when you are dealing with code that uses both libraries, it's a pain in the butt.Richard Deeming wrote: But at least the types are in different namespaces, so you don't need to mess around with extern aliases for the assemblies.
Interesting, thanks, I will look into the usage of 'extern.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: if they go to the trouble of using 'Rect instead of 'Rectangle, why re-use 'Point, and 'Size, and cause an unnecessary work-around?
I'm guessing that Rect came from the C++ type RECT:
RECT (windef.h) - Win32 apps | Microsoft Docs[^]
For Point and Size, I'm guessing the equivalent C++ types already had those names. There aren't really any suitable abbreviations that could be used. Having each library use a different synonym would be quite confusing, especially for non-English devs - Point/Size in one, Locus/Dimension in another, Position/Magnitude in a third, etc.
Imagine if you had to apply that across the board - You can't call your customer class Customer because that name has already been used in a different project; have you considered using Punter instead?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
On this issue, I am afraid our hypotheses will remain mutually incompatible Richard Deeming wrote: Having each library use a different synonym would be quite confusing, especially for non-English devs
I assert the way it is now is potentially confusing to all devs.
You might frame the issue as arising from: "they were thinking in C/C++;" I'd say: "arising from some mixture of: absence of thinking, poor co-ordination, lack of oversight."Richard Deeming wrote: Imagine if you had to apply that across the board - You can't call your customer class Customer because that name has already been used in a different project; have you considered using Punter instead?
Thanks for that absolute howler of a non-sequitur !
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
In this case I'd let VS warn me about the ambiguity and go fix the issues. This is the entire purposes of namespaces in the library.
|
|
|
|
|
I just showed you one way to fix the possible name-clashes, and, so, you suggest I "fix the issues" ?obermd wrote: This is the entire purposes of namespaces in the library.
Their purpose is to make the developer write work-arounds for their flawed implementations ?
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
modified 3-Sep-21 10:42am.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 2-Sep-21 5:20am.
|
|
|
|
|
I think this reply was meant for the message above.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
They did something similar with:
System.Data.SqlClient
Microsoft.Data.SqlClient
|
|
|
|
|
inconsistency is everywhere: it looks back at me in the mirror
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like an excellent decision by technical management at Microsoft. Yes, why bother doing a simple rename of the specific API namespace when so much more fun could be had working out the many expected complaints between the two development environments?
Oh well, it is good to see that technical management idiocy in the US is still alive and well.
At least it is consistent...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftwareoutlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience, seeing consistency in code syntax across domains, or lack of needless duplications of functionality/code ... would have been a surprise
Maybe there's a trade-off here ? If you have one "code czar" (like Stroustrup, Torvalds ?), or one "star chamber," with strong oversight ... you get more consistency, but, perhaps, slow down, or even stifle innovation ? And, if you have the grows by accretion, by accident, model, with multiple teams who don't coordinate, by survival of the fittest, by catering to the desires of groups of users with different usage patterns ... you get today's C#, or, PhotoShop ?
I'm not trying to blame developers here The pressures in the context that frame what devs can do, or have time to do, are often coming from top-down as program managers respond to marketing demands, as "feature races" drive budget allocations, as corporate execs respond to shareholder demands.
In other words, it's a mess, just like life ?
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
This is a funny place to be asking this, but I assume there are a fair number of business folks in the Lounge, so perhaps I'll find a gem of an answer here.
We are a 25 person development company. We have always had a very flat structure with me as the CEO/founder being the de-facto HR manager. Now, I am thinking it is time to hire an HR group to be a repository to answer all HR questions.
- Does anyone have a suggestion for a solid outsourced HR group to help manage this for their company?
- What pitfalls should I look out for using an outsourced HR group?
- Would I be better to hire an individual for this specifically?
Thanks in advance!
David
"Qulatiy is Job #1"
|
|
|
|
|
I do have first hand experience dealing with 3rd party that sits between my customer and me. It is very similar.
This customer has outsourced insurance verification for contractors. At least that is how it started out.
Then they added verification of quality control procedures, then they added verification of training procedures, and so on and so on.
Their current mission is:
.... is an online contractor and supplier management platform of data-driven products and services that help manage risk, support sustainability and strengthen relationships. It helps reduce unnecessary duplication associated with traditional qualification processes.
There is enormous scope creep to justifiy their existence.
The contractors are on the receiving end of overbearing rigidity, frequent requests to update procedures, and ever increasing requirements for insurance coverage, everything is cookie cutter style. You don't comply you get downgraded.
There is no longer a personal connection with the customer, that relationship was not strengthned.
The relationship with the customer is now only based on a grade for how well you comply with the procedures set in place by the company in between.
Every fad comes down the pipeline and is implemented.
The contractors hate this 3rd party.
The cost of compliance is sky-rocketing, and as a result the customer sees rapidly increasing cost.
I don't think your candidates will have a much different experience.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think your candidates will have a much different experience.
Some nice thoughts here.
I actually don't mind my being the boss and the HR person as well - there are even advantages.
Just yesterday, because I addressed an issue head on, it took what could have been a contentious issue, de-escalated things and got everyone to a place where they understood the company position and came to a solid mutual understanding. An agency would not have been able to help with this and would have drawn the pain out and perhaps not gotten it to a solution.
"Qulatiy is Job #1"
|
|
|
|
|
good luck! Just know that the quality of treatment of individuals goes down when they are called resources. Instead of say by their NAME!
Maybe call it personal coordinator or something instead of HR.
My .02
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
And remember that nowadays these people are more woke than anyone else. Whatever that means.
These days I have more contempt for HR than sales or even marketing...good thing I'm working for a tiny company that has no need for an HR department.
|
|
|
|
|
Good point @dandy72, about them being more woke than anyone else.
They are out to change the world, including your world.
Whether you like it or not.
As an illustration the 3rd party I am dealing with all of a sudden disallowed the section of our Health, Safety, and Environment manual, because....... tada.....we could no longer use the terminology of MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets). Stern words accompanied this edict: "only in a historical context".
Turn out there is a UN program that is being pushed and we are all now supposed to use SDS (Safety Data Sheets).
To the OP my recommendation is to keep things simple, and have someone you know and trust handle this for you.
|
|
|
|
|
To the OP my recommendation is to keep things simple, and have someone you know and trust handle this for you.
My wife? 
Sounds like another vote against an agency....
"Qulatiy is Job #1"
|
|
|
|
|
rnbergren wrote: the quality of treatment of individuals goes down when they are called resources
William Shakespeare (almost) wrote: Hath not a Resource eyes? Hath not a Resource hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Manager is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? ...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
hilarious!
PS follow-up.
I highly recommend you higher a person to be your Personal go between. They can coordinate any thing you want to out source like payroll, insurance etc... and also serve as a sounding board for you when you have questions about legal stuff. Buttttttt!!!!! Don't ever let them think they are in charge. They are there to help people including you. Not themselves.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Since you're the founder, etc. you should write some policy / procedure paper.
The (new) HR group will surely misinterpret and mangle your vision.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Since we actually have built a "All you need to know before you start to work for us" book (100+ pages now), including things like coding standards, how to deal with customers, marketing, etc., - having this clearly written down is a great suggestion!
"Qulatiy is Job #1"
|
|
|
|
|
From a similar place, but in a distant past, I would strongly recommend you look at offloading some of the HR. 25 employees is a lot to manage in totality. Especially if you also have a technical role.
My take on HR is it not being about normal day-to-day. You don't need HR and actively shouldn't have HR between you and your fellow employees for normal life. HR is about compliance, which in some juristrictions is complex, and often bizarre. It is very much about giving you tools to manage when things go wrong. Like insurance. I don't plan to total the car but when the Tesla didn't see me at the lights, be good to have an insurance company to deal with Elon.
I think HR is really quite a difficult task. Building the processes that work for your organisation and giving you compliance and tools for when things break without becoming intrusive in employee relations. Employee relations is not HR's job.
In summary, I wouldn't recommend a 'young and personable HR graduate'. That could easily subsume you in the process and offload the important 'getting on with your employees' bit which you and personable HR graduates enjoy much more than the hard yards of compliance and process. I would strongly recommend looking for a competent outsource organisation which can help you with compliance and processes at arms length. I realise that may be hard to find as, at least in my distant past, the industry has its share of dudes with fins and teeth who will only talk to the 'decision maker'.
Good luck with the task.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
