|
It's a bit like Ferrari!
You don't need a Ferrari to learn to drive, but it sure feels good! 
|
|
|
|
|
Analysts were uncertain today whether the recent stretch of "go-low" moves by Microsoft means that the company has tweaked its strategy to emphasize services at the expense of devices. "Crazy Eddie, his prices are IN-SA-A-A-A-A-ANE!"
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft released Visual Studio 2013 Update 2 CTP 2, along with the near-final version of its superset JavaScript programming language, TypeScript 1.0 RC.
Google wants to replace JavaScript, Microsoft just wants to control it.
|
|
|
|
|
How is creating a programming language that does everything JavaScript does and "more" NOT trying to replace JavaScript?
|
|
|
|
|
Because the TypeScript compiler emits JavaScript.
It's just a type-safe wrapper around the language to make it easier to write quality code in JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
TypeScript is different from the other JavaScript targeting languages in that you can just use it as a "compile time" helper for regular JavaScript since JavaScript is just a subset. In that sense you can "use" TypeScript without having to write TypeScript.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Shields wrote: Microsoft just wants to control it.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Mozilla on how its Servo engine will throw away the 20th-century baggage that holds back current browsers and harness the power of modern multi-core smartphones and tablets.
They've already lost the desktop battle to Chrome, but Servo gives Firefox a shot at winning the mobile war.
|
|
|
|
|
When it comes to optimizing database queries, a new study suggests that most programmers could use a refresher course You mean, "SELECT * FROM tablename" isn't optimized?
|
|
|
|
|
It's disturbing how many positions I've worked where database performance was, at best, an afterthought.
Truth be told, I imagine I'd fail such a test as well.
Hmm... Back to Joe Celko I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Score: 3 of 5 points
You know a little bit
about SQL performance!.
Yay...I am one of the select few :-P
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, in the accompanying article they defined a pass as 4 out of 5.
Sorry.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe your signature amply covers that...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you've got 8 more attempts!
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure it is; it uses a lot less network bandwidth than listing all the colunm names. And it's future proof as well, less maintenance, win-win.
This space intentionally left blank.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'd think you'd want to tack a WHERE clause on there, or TOP, or something else to reduce the possible number of rows coming back.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Not if you want them all.
This space intentionally left blank.
|
|
|
|
|
 Fair enough
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Could someone give an extended explanation for the 5th question? In particular, why can't the DB optimize it by first doing WHERE a = @a over the entire table to get a subset of 100 records and then doing WHERE b = @b over just those hundred? Since the brute force/non-indexed where clause is only being done over ~100 records it shouldn't require a significant amount of time to do.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging 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
|
|
|
|
|
Got 5 for 5, but in my last position, I was forced into the DBA role for 2 years when the DBA announced on Monday that Wednesday was his last day.
I could either learn and save myself a lot of grief, or suffer, and I don't like that kind of suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
A "scary" software flaw that has put users of iPhones, iPads and Mac computers at risk of being hacked has dealt a blow to the reputation of Apple, the world’s most valuable brand, say security researchers. More news from that category, "Duh!"
|
|
|
|
|
What QuickTime, iTunes and Bonjour couldn't do to that reputation cannot be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, with Google Android getting such the world-wide market bigger, percentage-wide, than Apple, the same could be said of Google. They're just as "vunlerable" of virus / security attacks due to their popularity as is Apple; if not, more, because they have a larger user-base.
In 1985 I started using a Mac 512ke at my employer.
In 1986 I bought a Mac Plus (1MB of RAM, Yeah Baby!) and printer for $3,200. (Side Bar: the finance company went under 3 weeks later and I didn't pay a dime!).
So I figure the only way to keep gettin' free Macs was to work for the source, Apple.
I started working for Apple's Human Interface Group (HIG) in the late 1980's.
Since June, 1986, I've never had a virus or security issue with an Apple and/or Mac product.
Only 1 virus hit a series of Macs at a company that I (years) later became an employee at. Other than that, I know of no mass virus/security threat within all my 27+ years of Mac use within my many, many contact spheres.
Yet, 'tis factual, hackers prefer and seek larger audiences to exploit, which is where both Google and Apple are now at.
|
|
|
|
|
And, for the record, yes, I do use anti-virus software; since last June.
Why? Cuz my kids are now using the computers!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
