|
I thought it was 42? do I need to head back to school after all this time? 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: The worst part is they continue with "of course this makes perfect sense."
Dunno.
Computer says "syntax error".
Guess computer says no.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Guess computer says no.
I concur.
|
|
|
|
|
Quite straightforward, without bragging.
This is a proof that F(x) depends on F(x-1), so you have arithmetic progression. Depending on how complex F(x) is, you could get a good evaluation of any F(x) knowing F(0) or F(1), and use the general formula for calculating the arithmteic progression.
|
|
|
|
|
I almost understood what you said and I'm also pretty sure that's exactly what it does.
It doesn't prove anything to me though (well, it proves that I'm not very good at math)  / 
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like P(x=y) is the probability of x being equal to y - i.e. a probability distribution. F(x) is the corresponding cumulative probability:
F(x) is defined as the P(robability) of X <= x, and considered equal to the sum of Probabilities of all values y that are <= x - which implies the range of x is limited to whole numbers.
The remainder is a transformation to a recursive function definition
F(x) = F(x-1) + P(X=x)
Easy as eating pancakes.
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote: Easy as eating pancakes.
F(I'm hungry) = Σ > 0
pancakesNow that's something I can understand! 
You're right about everything but the pancakes though.
|
|
|
|
|
So, after last week's post about the number of files created by VS when you start a new MVC project, I installed ASP.NET MVC Boilerplate [^] to see if it might be of use.
Anyway, selected "ASP.NET MVC6 (Beta 7) Boilerplate (Also Beta)" and clicked OK, taking all defaults offered.
Incredibly this left me with a folder structure that comprises 4,665 folders and 19,566 files for a web application that is 3 pages and does nothing!
I know we no longer worry about "object bloat" and everyone has massive disks (no laughing  ) but surely that is just an unmanagable mess of crap.
A vanilla MVC app in VS2013 yields 142 files over 71 folders.
I suppose we'll have to get used to it. 
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: I suppose we'll have to get used to it.
Or come up with something better
I can build a page that does nothing using plain HTML.
Use what is appropriate to solve the problem. Not more, not less.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: I can build a page that does nothing using plain HTML.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Use what is appropriate to solve the problem. Not more, not less.
I completely agree. However, out of the box, VS2015 is adding unnecessary complexity and making it harder to manage what should be a simple part of the process: VS2014 deposits around 10% of the files that VS2015 does for a similar action. I have my own "projects" that I use as a starting point and thay have any cruft removed. That job just got much harder!
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative?[^]
Seriously though, when I just want to test some stuff or write out some simple HTML or JavaScript I prefer a simple text editor (with some plugins installed).
I also recommend anyone who starts web development to use Notepad++ until they're familiar with HTML, JavaScript and some simple back-end with PHP or Node.js (so we can stick with Notepad++) and only then move to Visual Studio and C#.
The crap Visual Studio generates is insane... You get Knockout, jQuery, jQuery Validation, Antlr, and who knows what BY DEFAULT!
I don't even know what half of that stuff is and half of the time (if not more) I won't even need it!
We need the web to be more like a Console app. All you get is Program.cs, which is nice
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, use NotePad++ a lot - great tool. However, if you are in a team that use VS/TFS then you really don't have much choice about how it all works. As I said, I keep minimal black-box projects ready to go that have a tiny footprint compared to the default that VS emits. However, bear in mind that there are a large number of developers that just want to create a project in the IDE and get on with it.
Still, thought it worth making the point about the spaghetti of files and folders that the new version creates.
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: bear in mind that there are a large number of developers that just want to create a project in the IDE and get on with it
The problem I have with that, especially for beginners, is that it obfuscates what's really happening.
Developers think jQuery equals JavaScript and that MVC is something Microsoft invented.
Doing a little 'vanilla' Node.js or PHP (with XAMPP, for example) really opens your eyes.
Of course a lot is still abstracted away, but at least an AJAX call is more (or less?) than a method (with nicely parsed/typed parameters) on a Controller.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree with anything you see. However, the reality for the vast majority of developers is that you pitch up at your latest contract/role and it's "here's VS and TFS, get on with it". The developer may know that he/she could have cut the bloat had they started the project but that isn't always a choice.
Perhaps a good article for someone would be to show how to create and use a minimal footprint project template. And by someone, of course, I mean you!
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: you pitch up at your latest contract/role and it's "here's VS and TFS, get on with it"
Yep, so do I. It's easiest by far.
I cut some obvious bloat, but leave most in place.
But at least I know what they are, kind of what's going on, etc.
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: Perhaps a good article for someone would be to show how to create and use a minimal footprint project template. And by someone, of course, I mean you!
That's not a bad idea! Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time, homework and such (see my message above)
Maybe, someday...
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: but surely that is just an unmanagable mess of crap.
Nah...they are just getting ready for when your single app becomes the sole product of a Fortune 500 company...because that of course is the most likely scenario for every single app out there.
|
|
|
|
|
R. Giskard Reventlov wrote: Incredibly this left me with a folder structure that comprises 4,665 folders and 19,566 files for a web application that is 3 pages and does nothing!
|
|
|
|
|
ASP.NET...MVC...
Why are you using archaic technologies and paradigms?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
I maintain our company's collection of development tools. A few months ago, I had a request for some useful utility to be included in the project toolbox. Sure - it was a free, open source tool, available at no cost.
It took ages to install - first time around I was convinced that the machine had locked up. When it finally came to life again, the number of files had increased by 300,000! I went to the project leader to verify that they really wanted another .3 million files on each and every developer PC, just for this litte utility. Oh, no - they didn't need all those libraries and stuff, just the core functionality! So I reinstalled, this time only the minimal set of files. 73,000 of them, that's the minimal set. Sigh.
So VS2015 is not alone. (And while we are at it: Rumours are that the five volume hardcover series "GCC compiler options listed" will be published in a real leatherbound edition before Christmas, suitable as a gift to open source preachers...)
|
|
|
|
|
But you are using some morons template, you cant blame MSFT for that. Blame the twat that wrote it, mr Rehan Saeed apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think it is entirely his fault: he is just collating many of the 'useful' libraries and functionality you would probbaly add. In reality, a bare-assed install is 2112 files and 523 folders. Crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
New landlord told me that comcast is my one and only option at that apartment.
I would truly love to get around that.
Anyone who hates AT&T, understood. I want to stick with them. Really I do.
I swear this should be declared illegal, anti-competitive, and restraint of free trade.
But then, I don't have enough money to buy the law.
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it the only option? If it's the landlord's diktat then you can't really blame Comcast.
|
|
|
|
|
Good point.
Can't blame comcast ???
Okay, possibly, maybe, the Landlord decided, "We will only have one Internet provider, we don't want prospective residents to have a choice of what they like"
At least here where I am (leaving soon) I could choose between the two.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
