|
I think the snippet is in C#, which does allow that.
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.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
OK, makes sense. C++ allows for a lot of this kind of thing through operator overloading, though I tend to be a pure C programmer, and I like the level of clunky direct control you have of the code with C. 
|
|
|
|
|
Just read the user manual that came with the WookieTab, and thought I'd share.
Are you sitting comfortably? OK, lets begin!
Dear users, Thank you for your purchase of CHUWI products Hi12Series Tablet poly nuclear, Hi12 is a quad-core Tablet PC products CHUWI well - launch of the brand can swim the internet.
This poly-core series Tablet PC can' t suffer drip and splash water, and can' t place it beside such as full glass of Liquid body.
Ah...bliss. Reminds me of the early Japanese motorcycle manuals, where someone at Suzuki had difficulty with the "f" in "shifting" - leading to a whole chapter talking about "if you have difficulty in shiting ..."
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: if you have difficulty in shiting ...
... then take a Chuwi tablet three times a day. 
OriginalGriff wrote: full glass of Liquid body
Yum, soylent green! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Old Italian IBM manuals are still renowned for their translations of "mouse balls" which was quite literally "mouse b*ll*cks".
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you sure they didn't want to mean "liquid nitrogen"?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to love reading the user manuals that came with oriental products in the 1960s. I wish i still had some of them.
We're philosophical about power outages here. A.C. come, A.C. go.
|
|
|
|
|
The fun has not ended yet. Take at look at the Top 10 Best Photography Lighting Sets In 2017 Reviews, and you will find this for the Neewer 600W kit:
"With some magnificent features and productivity, this lighting set furnishes its users with the most extreme nature of lighting. There are a couple of positive conditions that are given moreover offered by this pack. This master pack can be a perfect ruffle for advancing any things, cutting edge, photo workmanship, moreover particular photography.
This set is open at to a great degree mind boggling and sensible cost. Everything is created use premium things, so they can continue going for a long time. There are a couple of profitable things that are open in this kit, for instance, streak lights, umbrellas, fragile boxes, light stands, creature abode passages, and whatever different well-known things.
Among the numerous expert studio photography lighting kits, the Studio Pro has set some unsurpassable elevated requirements that made it a standout amongst the most well-known available today. Including magnificent features and capacities with regards to ideal outcomes, this pack deals with each picture taker’s need."
|
|
|
|
|
Some years ago I had the manual for a "general remote control" on my office door. And even if the words in the manual were swedish it was fairly easy to figure out the text in the english original.
It started off congratulating to the purchase of this device. However it had stopped being a "general remote control" and turned into a, if I translate it back to english, "public distant control". It didn't get any better after that.
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest scanning them and submitting the results to engrish.com[^]
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Today I Learned that there is such a thing as a PHP obfuscator.
GitHub - pk-fr/yakpro-po: YAK Pro - Php Obfuscator[^]
As if PHP wasn't obfuscated enough by nature.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Removes all comments, indentation, and generates a single line program file.
Obfuscates if, else, elseif, for, while, do while by replacing them with if goto statements.
Obfuscates string literals.
Scrambles names for:
Variables, Functions, Constants.
Classes, Interfaces, Traits.
Properties, Methods.
Namespaces.
Labels.
So not much to do for most of the sources. 
|
|
|
|
|
Something like this
function obfuscate($php) {
return $php;
}
|
|
|
|
|
What are you doing here, making fun of PHP? Your beloved MordorScript shares many of the features that make PHP so laughable.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
What makes you think I like MordorScript?
|
|
|
|
|
You are always on about something that has to do with it. 
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.
|
|
|
|
|
Model - View - ViewModel is the common architectural base of WPF applications: the View knows its ViewModel, which in turn knows its Model; the model doesn't know a ViewModel, and the ViewModel doesn't know a View - the latter one is an observer of the NotifyPropertyChanged events only.
Now I see a pattern in the ViewModel code of a master of WPF:
. public SomeViewModel(string title)
{
_OkPressed = false;
_SomeForm = new SomeForm();
_SomeWindow = new Window
{
Title = title,
Content = _SomeForm,
...,
};
_SomeWindow.Activated += _SomeWindow_Activated;
_SomeForm.DataContext = this;
...
}Is it necessary to note that SomeForm is a UserControl?
At my first programming job - 17 years ago, VB6 - I was taught to separate UI concerns from other code, and I follow that principle since then. Others haven't learned that after more than 25 years in IT. Well, experience should not be measured in years...
|
|
|
|
|
Oh dear. Oh dear indeed.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I'm going to dive in here and expose my ignorance. I'm quite new to MVVM -- been working with it for less than a month -- and I understand the objectives of "Separation of Concerns", but it is not obvious to me why this code is facepalm. Could you walk me through an example of how this particular design might cause problems down the line?
On a similar note, I was recently describing "pure MVVM" to a colleague and I found myself struggling to provide a compelling reason to avoid all code-behind. He asked, "what difference does it make if I bind to objects in the code-behind rather than to objects in a separate 'ViewModel' class?"
Troelsen's sixth edition of "Pro C# 5.0" (published in 2012) has 3 or 4 chapters on WPF, but doesn't even mention MVVM or ViewModels, and instead puts all code in the codebehind. Help me understand why this is so problematic.
|
|
|
|
|
The "justification" of these patterns had a lot to do with the notion that we could have "visual designers" (who "can't program") and programmers (who "can't design UI's") work together to create an application.
The visual designers create the "views" (i.e. using Blend); the programmers create the view-models and models; and everything magically comes together.
In reality, the visual designers do their own thing using PhotoShop; using features that won't import into Blend; and having no appreciation for the "patterns" that have been established by the MVVM community; i.e. simplistic LOB (line-of-business) CRUD views (create; read; update; delete).
So, MVVM adherence is directly proportional to the numbers of developers on a project, the simplicity of the (LOB) app, and the fanaticism of whomever is the resident MVVM champion (if there is one).
(There is a reason why the many galleries of MSDN programming examples only feature MVVM as another "example": because they are not "typical").
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
modified 2-Feb-17 12:19pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, the thing it sounds like you're struggling with here is what the concept of the ViewModel is in MVVM. The VM is, basically, the glue between the view and the models and allows you to "shape" the interactions from the views. Part of the reason to separate it is that you can more easily change what the View looks like and how it interacts with the models. By models, I'm talking about anything that isn't a view object - this could be writing to a log file, saving data to a database, reading files from the disk, and so on. Now, the biggest advantage of separating out the VM is, as you noted, Separation of Concerns, but this is best coupled with unit testing. In other words, having a ViewModel makes it a lot easier to test the behaviour of logical areas of code in isolation - typically, you'd have your models injected into your VM as interfaces which could easily be mocked. This is a lot harder to do in code behind - it's a whole lot harder because IoC isn't directly supported in creating windows and user controls.
Okay, that's fairly high level but here's one of my favourite advantages with the VM approach. There's an MVVM concept called ViewModel first - this talks about how you want to compose a particular view onto the UI. I shall apologise in advance for this because this is going to assume a lot of knowledge, but I shall try to simplify it where possible. With VM first, you put a plain vanilla Control onto your UI then you populate the template of this based off a binding. What this means is that you say that the control accepts a Binding of a type. Then, at runtime, we populate this with a ViewModel - this population might be driven by choosing to show a particular document type off a menu (for instance), and each document type is a different ViewModel. At this point, through the magic that is WPF, it looks for an appropriate template to display in the control. If we haven't associated a particular template (it's a DataTemplate I'm talking about here) with the ViewModel, it looks back through the inheritance chain of the ViewModel until it finds a matching template - the default one you'll see just displays the name of the class. If we have created a DataTemplate that matches the ViewModel, that particular template will be rendered in the control.
So, ultimately, the ViewModel approach allows us to decouple what the View looks like, from the behaviour of the control.
I hope that helps (and as a shameless plug, I have recently started a series of articles that aims to demystify MVVM and explain the whys and wherefores of it without any of the misconceptions that exist around it, you can find the articles here[^] and here[^])
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
That first paragraph makes perfect sense. I don't think I have quite enough foundation to grok that second paragraph, but I look forward to reading your articles. Thanks for taking the time to respond!
(I also just watched a fantastic video by Jason Dolinger that reiterates what you said and clarified a lot for me.)
Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
|
I've just bookmarked those two articles for later reading
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent. I'm deep in the process of writing part 3 right now. In order to demonstrate the power of templates, I'm rewriting the code so that it's capable of doing ViewModel first resolution.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Great stuff. I'll be sure to keep my eye out for that
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
