|
You can stop the balls by clicking on them.
The game is to, as quickly as you can, click all the balls to make them stationary.....  damn frustrating!
|
|
|
|
|
Funnily, its labelled "realistic collision physics, but disobeys the law of conservation of momentum - the amount of energy in the system actually goes up sometimes!
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Eventually they invented the perpetuum mobile. It works in their code already.
|
|
|
|
|
I was writing code the other day and a colleague of mine came by and asked me why I use comments and Function names in Camel Case.
For some weird reason, this annoyed me, and I went on to make a case for camel case such as readability, and I noticed myself getting angry as if an attack on my code was an attack on me.
Am I the only one who defends my code by whatever means and shirks having to change what we view as 'superior' habits? Or is this a case of the overprotective 'mother hen  ' on her chics?
Know ye not that ye are gods?
|
|
|
|
|
You my friend, deserve a +1.
Yes, I do that! I do that everytime, I don't like anyone trying to tell me, "hey don't do that, don't be like that". I mean, if he's perfect enough, why don't he do the job?
It's my code, and I write it as I like! If there is a compile time error, complain, if there ain't any, then please shut the damn thing up. Simple as that!
Favourite line: Throw me to them wolves and close the gate up. I am afraid of what will happen to them wolves - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Every team should have some kind of common coding style defined and settled.
Because you may not be the only one working on a particular code base.
It is a poor management style to not get these things sorted out from the very beginning.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, but even then from the team, people just have some quirks that they seem very averse to changing, it's as if changing it means they change the very core of who they are...  , a survival instinct of sorts
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it depends... If the entire team decides PascalCasing is the way to go on function names then you'd just be an a-hole if you went all camelCase, or worse, sHungarianNotation (that's s for stupid  ).
Where I work we have a common style defined and everyone sticks to that. There's still some freedom of style though. Personally I like using the this keyword, for example this.SomeFunction(), so I know it's an instance method that's called and not a class method. My co-workers don't use this that often though.
If someone asks why I use this that often I can tell them my reason and they can agree with me or be wrong (no hurt feelings either way). Until the entire team decides to not use this, in which case I'll have to adjust my style.
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
it's interesting how even in teams, we still try to preserve our 'soul' and essence of our personalities, as if to tell the whole world to go to hell and leave our code alone. 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's pretty difficult to turn off our preferences and personalities
It's an OO world.
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to rebel against the new fangled, latest and greatest. The idea that comments aren't needed is asinine as far as I am concerned.
My direct report wants us to start putting in TDD stuff for bug fixes to established code. That will take weeks and it doubles the amount of code I will have to write. I can understand, MAYBE, for completely new code, but for stuff that is nearly 8 years old? NO way.
Don't screw around with "MY" code.
|
|
|
|
|
eyesark wrote: Am I the only one who defends my code
I think yes... I prefer to defend mine 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
ahaha... noted 
|
|
|
|
|
eyesark wrote: what we view as 'superior' habits
While you may have made your 'case' with your colleague, it was probably in vain, as he/she clearly has a different style that is 'superior' in their minds.
That said, understand the frustration of having someone nitpick about something that trivial, so you get a +5 for combating stupidity!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Just do your own thing if it's comfortable. What other people say are just opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
Spotted myself doing this today:
@Html.UppercaseFirst(Model.SubType.Replace("Document", "document"))
|
|
|
|
|
Forest for the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
|
|
|
|
|
The IDE didn't knock on your forehead and say, "Hello! McFly!" ? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
A colleague tried to install a Windows service at a customer site. The installation failed with an error in side by side configuration.
But what was the actual problem? In the application configuration file, an entry in appSettings started with
< add key=
The service was to be started at the end of the installation, and failed.
Oh thank you, Microsoft! Even a single space character between the opening bracket and the keyword causes an application startup failure.
And next, ther error message ("side by side configuration") is so useful here.
Two WTFs in one place. Can you top that?
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes, but the app.config is an xml file and what you have there is not XML.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
|
0. Complain to W3C about that. that's Invalid XML.
1. Learn the terms associated with .net development, (start here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa376307.aspx[^], hint: your error has to do with this:
Quote: Applications and administrators can update assembly configuration on either a global or per-application configuration basis after deployment. For example, an application can be updated to use a side-by-side assembly that includes an update without having to reinstall the application.
means that the error could have been on the machine.config file.)
|
|
|
|
|
A config file shall be valid XML, and what you have there isn't valid XML. While I understand the WTF, I wonder if MS can do a good job, even while they follow standards they get mocked upon.
The console is a black place
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
