|
They don't have scouting where you are?
|
|
|
|
|
yes, but they thought I was not cool enough to join. (somewhere in the early 80s)
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I was a boy, scouting for girls was cool.
Scouting for boys was for the forest nerds.
|
|
|
|
|
Scouts were too much religious at that time and refuses all anti-christs non baptized kids.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: refuses all anti-christs non baptized kids.
That's dumb.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose via cable is not an option ?
|
|
|
|
|
The laptop's HDMI port is connected to the video projector, and the two USB ports are being used (one is connected to the race track, and the other is connected to the mouse/keyboard).
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried connecting a USB hub to give you more connections?
Also, many cameras have a network port so you could just create a small network containing the camera and the laptop.
I connected to 68 cameras to a server this way. I then wrote software to enable multiple streams from any of them - they had been restricted to only two per camera but this method enabled more than that.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
USB Hub and USB cable to your GoPro is probably the best solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Just curios. For you ASP.net developers out there. If you were to start a new project, which would you use and why?
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
To answer your questions, "it depends", and "because". 
Microsoft are pushing .NET Core as the future, and won't be making any further changes to the .NET Framework. It's not going away any time soon, but the features and performance will never improve, and any bugs which don't impact security will never be fixed.
You can get some C# 8 features to work in a .NET Framework project by manually editing the project file; others require additional NuGet packages; and some won't work at all. I think some of the new features are terrible - particularly the tangled mess that came out of "default interface methods" - but without upgrading to .NET Core, you probably won't be able to take advantage of any further improvements to the language.
But at the same time, we regularly need to display or export SSRS reports from our applications. I have yet to find a reliable way of doing that which would work in .NET Core.
We also occasionally have to interact with a third-party ERP system which uses a WCF interface with a custom closed-source message format. I have yet to see whether it's possible to make that work in Core.
I don't think we've yet reached the point where newer libraries are dropping support for .NET Framework. Microsoft tried it with EF Core 3.0, but changed their minds for 3.1, which caused a complete mess. Having said that, it's probably only a matter of time, especially with ".NET 5" allegedly slated for release later this year.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like it would be OK to use .Net Core for newbasic web apps. But anything legacy would probably require .Net Framework.
Richard Deeming wrote: I think some of the new features are terrible - particularly the tangled mess that came out of "default interface methods
I totaloly agree here. What a terrible idea.
Thanks for your input
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, why is 3.1 a long term support version if they are going to .Net 5 right away?
I haven't seen a new C# feature in a while that was much of an improvement and most of them obscure the readability of the code.
I find it funny that they are pushing WPF with no compelling reason. I tested and a WinForm app calls .Net Core 3.1 assemblies just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: Yeah, why is 3.1 a long term support version if they are going to .Net 5 right away?
Because they need a version for customers who're unable/unwilling to upgrade framework versions every few month (3.1 LTS) while they work on the next version for early adoptersunpaid beta testers (5.0).
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have a butt-load of WCF services. We won't be switching over anytime soon.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
Given where you work, I'm amazed you've managed to drag them up as far as MVC. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Caveat - we *still* haven't started active dev work with the new template, so I'm not really counting it yet.
".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
|
|
|
|
|
Neither. I've been using ASP.Net Webforms for 15 years but am still learning lots. I've never come across anything I needed to do with it that I couldn't. I'm at an age where I'm not about to start learning a complete new paradigm, library, framework...
It's unlikely that I'll be starting any new projects at this point, other than "hobby" or personal projects, and for them WebForms will do the job admirably. However I do acknowledge that as Microsoft has declared there will be no further development on the WebForms front and that there will be no extensions to .Net Framework, it's inevitable that "the world" will move away from it to .Net core and MVC. I've just finished a task working on a Classic ASP site running on Windows 2003. Yes, it's in production and it is a core Line-of-Business application. Software hangs around for a lot longer than we might like, and that works in two ways. First it means that support for WebForms is unlikely to disappear any time soon; currently most Windows hosting companies support Classic ASP and ASP.Net Webforms, whilst only a minority have .Net Core fully available. So in one respect I'd have no worries about building a new WebForms application, on the assumption that "most" websites only last around 5 - 10 years or less before a rewrite. However my recent experience confirms that some can last a lot longer than that, and I'd be wary not so much about lumbering a client with a technically obsolete application, but rather leaving them with one that no-one could - or more to the point would - provide support for. And that is the crunch issue, really. There are lots of developers who know Classic ASP, for instance - but very few who are willing to take on Classic ASP projects, because they don't add to the CV, they don't build new skills, they don't give the buzz that being at the "cutting edge" brings.
So as others have said - "it depends". I don't know the detail differences between the options you give, but the same considerations apply. What is the realistic lifetime of the application? Is it for a 3rd party who might need to find alternative support in the future? Where is it to be hosted? Plus other commercial considerations - is choosing .Net Core at this time limiting the potential hosting options, and therefore a potentially more expensive solution? Is there a learning curve for the developer(s) that will extend development timescales and costs, potentially negating the project's benefits?
You're "just curious", but I suspect you have a potential project in mind. Just apply the usual technical and commercial criteria that you would normally use for determining the best implementation route.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Derek
It is quite refreshing to find someone else who is a Web Forms fan !
Tom M
|
|
|
|
|
There are dozens of us! Dozens I tell you!
My issue is that webforms is super easy to get going. If you are building a site for hundreds or maybe even just dozens (super common to have a $50MM company only have 2-3 AP people, 5-15 salespeople, etc) the performance issue of postbacks isn't really a concern in 2020 with 12-core processors and 4G. And if you have 1-2 programmers, they are probably responsible for all the code. So separation while nice, isn't as beneficial as many make it out to be. Testing too. Most of us coding for 100 internal users aren't running unit tests for the webpage I just created that contains a gridview and a details view. It's basically a glorified report. Rowbound processing is easy and fast. And javascript libraries are easy to add to the pages for additional functionality and reduced postbacks.
MVC seems like overkill to give my users a report of the past due invoices.
|
|
|
|
|
I've coded ASP.NET WebForms forever and find them to be easy to implement and expand. Turned over most all our front end work to 2 talented web devs, they make everything mobile friendly and I'm happy doing the backend, loading controls programatically, etc. Did a bit of MVC work and found it overly complicated with not much return on that investment.
|
|
|
|
|
.NET Core.
I just really love the API, the startup class, the built-in DI, JSON based configuration, EF Core...
I recently needed some WPF application for an old SOAP connection with a third party, but .NET somehow felt clunky after years of .NET Core.
Luckily I could still use all of the .NET Core libraries I became used to, like Entity Framework Core.
.NET Core is also the future, with .NET merging with .NET Core in .NET 5.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
