|
Ajay Bhatt was struggling to upgrade his computer when he began to see the need for one plug to rule them all. And in the darkness confound them (as they couldn't figure out the orientation)
Yes, I know about the symbol, but I have too many where you can't feel it in the dark. Thank you, great designers at Apple.
|
|
|
|
|
FC wrote: one plug to rule them all.
Type A, type B, USB-C, mini A, mini B, mini AB, micro A, micro B, micro B superspeed, micro AB..
One plug, eh? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
One ... ish 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
When you're talking very large values of 1, yes, "1" port.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Type A, type B, USB-C, mini A, mini B, mini AB, micro A, micro B, micro B superspeed, micro AB..
One plug, eh? 
Look, just because you don't understand the IT-world definition of the word "standard" doesn't make it wrong! 
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, so RS422, RS485, and all the other RSs are not worthy of consideration, eh?
You should get a twitter account, and start screaming about FAKE PROTOCOLS!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Oh, so RS422, RS485, and all the other RSs are not worthy of consideration, eh?
You can yam a RS232 plug in there. Try that with USB.
Mark_Wallace wrote: You should get a twitter account, and start screaming about FAKE PROTOCOLS!
I'm not a president (yet?), don't have twitter, and don't complain about protocols; but it surely is not "one plug" as advertised 
--edit
I only listed the connectors, the physical sockets; that there's a need for an update in protocol does not mean that you "have to" change the one unique selling point for your universal connector. Your RSes back that up
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
modified 3-Jun-19 19:30pm.
|
|
|
|
|
A Google super computer has been able to do something that’s never been done before, and it could have serious military applications. And now they're coming for our flags
They could have at least used Doom, so I could utter an appropriate warning: DoooOOoOOOOOOooOOOm!
|
|
|
|
|
*** BULLFACT ALERT! ***
Of course the bloody thing is going to win more often than not!
They say that they compensated for "reaction time", but that's meaningless.
With games these days, a human has to move seventeen fingers nine times to aim and shoot, so bugger "reaction times", it's all about "mere humans" having to make physical movements that AIs don't have to make -- as soon as they "think" what they have to do, the movements to make it happen are perfect, because there's no clunky keyboard or joypad interface between them and the action.
Let's see how it goes with mechanical fingers and keyboards/joypads.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Researchers say they’ve discovered an advanced piece of Linux malware that has escaped detection by antivirus products and appears to be actively used in targeted attacks. Good thing there aren't any Linux viruses
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Good thing there aren't any Linux viruses
..but there is a lot of malware.
The Battle.net app is a weird mess of of things that assumes that you have certain things on your system in order to work properly. To give you a bit of an idea; it's written in Qt, but it requires Internet Explorer. IE8 is listed as a dependency. For a Qt app.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
The long road to C# 9 has already begun and this is the first article in the world about the C# 9 Candidate features "Number nine, number nine, number nine, number nine"
So we're already talking about it? Yeesh
|
|
|
|
|
They're ruining .Net...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dictionary literals??
They're adding so much syntactic sugar to language it's stupid. Yeah, using Dictionary is common, but how often do you initialize them using literals? I can only think of one instance in the code I've written going back to 2001.
The example of "records" originally seemed a bit off. The 8 line example wouldn't translate to the 32 lines of code. It seems like the author is presenting a new Point3D class definition using the "record" feature instead?
Type Classes? Oh sh*t. Adding functional programming support to C# is just begging for an excuse for adding even more sugar.
The base C# language is being buried by a truckload of syntactic sugar. I wouldn't even call it C# anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
You're not required to use it all ofcourse; my usual code is still .NET 2.0 compatible. Makes it more accessible to new developers who didn't have yet the time to digest all the sugar.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I know I don't have to use it. I just hate where the language is going. It's blurring the lines between C# and F# and the .NET BCL itself.
I'm writing code now that will have to be maintained after I leave and I'm writing it so that there's nothing special being done and the structure should be easily understandable by a noob.
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: I just hate where the language is going.
Yup, me too.
Dave Kreskowiak wrote: It's blurring the lines between C# and F# and the .NET BCL itself.
It feels like change for the sake of change; C#, now new and improved, and with active oxygen to make your code even cleaner 
Makes you not want to think about how the language will be in 10-15 years.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: You're not required to use it all ofcourse; my usual code is still .NET 2.0 compatible.
But that's the entire point with the morons who upgrade solely for the sake of upgrading or reaping upgrade fees.
It's like acrobat. The default setting in acrobat is still to produce pdf files to version 4.0 of acrobat standards (which is hardly surprising, because acrobat is nothing more than a shell over PostScript).
So the 183 later versions of acrobat still produce pdf files to exactly the same standards, meaning that every "Great! New! Feature!" they've added is nothing more than digital belly-button lint.
The last few "Great! New! Releases!" of .NET have followed exactly the same principle.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
If there's a good prize, everyone is going to game the system to get that. So... create as many as you can? (Mission Accomplished!)
|
|
|
|
|
A dev who believes that he doesn't create bugs is the same as a person who believes that he's a great driver.
As in, they only see crashes in their rear-view mirrors.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Samsung and TSMC move to 5-nanometer manufacturing "But I never studied law"
|
|
|
|
|
Chrome is deprecating the blocking capabilities of the webRequest API in Manifest V3, not the entire webRequest API (though blocking will still be available to enterprise deployments). Google is essentially saying that Chrome will still have the capability to block unwanted content, but this will be restricted to only paid, enterprise users of Chrome.
For the rest of us, Google hasn’t budged on their changes to content blockers, meaning that ad blockers will need to switch to a less effective, rules-based system, called “declarativeNetRequest.”
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think they will succeed in it. People who want to block unwanted ads will find other ways to do so, like PiHole etc. Or finally see the value in alternative browsers like Firefox again, and that a monopoly in this area can never be healthy to the web.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
