|
My boss told me the contingency plan to replace me. Luckily we have some nice landscaping river rock outside our nearly underground windows. He will choose a nice rock and place it in my chair and setup my auto email reply to "I'll check into that." No doubt the rock will have a more pleasant demeanor towards co-workers and productivity will skyrocket.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Does this mean you're going to replace me?
Maybe you ARE the backup 
|
|
|
|
|
Mind
blown!  
That's it - I'm going to visit the hamsters to see if my tape is there!
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Synopsys has found that 99% of commercial software programs include at least one open-source component. But 91% of those included out of date or abandoned open-source code. Usually to be found next to the out-of-date, insecure closed source software
|
|
|
|
|
We need an article titled something like, "Researchers Discover That Not All Abandoned Computer Projects Have Bugs - And Extensive Grant Money Was Spent!"
(Even though I will grant that many, if not most, have some bug present. But we need to Look At The Bright Side Of Life sometimes.)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder what their findings would be on commercial software.
I mean, Crystal Reports is not open source, but it's full of bugs and companies still use versions that are over a decade old.
One of my clients uses a third party product which uses a third party reporting product that's from 2002 or some such.
It's written in Delphi and the version they use isn't supported anymore in such a way that all the new tools and versions are completely incompatible with the version they use and the older tooling isn't available from official channels anymore.
It's still a commercial product though.
This research is cool and all, but no research is done (or can be done) for the alternative, so the findings don't mean much.
Well, except that software, generally, is out-of-date and buggy.
That said, the out-of-date and potentially insecure and buggy open-source software is probably newer and more stable than the software it's being used in, but these researchers don't mention anything about that 
Also, not every newer version is more secure and more stable, but that's what you said.
|
|
|
|
|
Kite's AI-powered automatic code-completion tool is no longer only for Python developers. Then the AI came for the "send codezplz" folk, and I just stood back and giggled
|
|
|
|
|
I had already thought on using a kind of chat bot with programming stuff in the Q&A... I don't why, but I think many some of the enquirers wouldn't notize the difference.
Heck, I even think that some of the enquirers likely are chat bots...
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.
|
|
|
|
|
The Windows 10 SDK for Windows 10, version 2004 is now available with a go-live license. Build 19041, also known as the Windows 10 May 2020 Update, is now in the Release Preview Windows Insider ring. Or next Tuesday. They're open to negotiation. How's September sounding for you?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: How's September sounding for you?
Which year? 
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: How's September sounding for you?
Wake me up when it ends. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Good luck and don’t damage your spaceship Well, that's one less potential career for me.
And uh, sorry about that collision.
|
|
|
|
|
The Verge wrote: Good luck and don’t damage your spaceship
Do you have to pay it if you crash it?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: Do you have to pay it if you crash it?
Yes, all missions have 'Pay Loads' on them
|
|
|
|
|
It's easier when you think of it as the ISS moving towards you and the crew capsule as stationary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strax says: “I suggest a full-frontal assault with automated laser-monkeys, scalpel mines, and acid.”
|
|
|
|
|
All companies, even those with no remote work culture, have had to mandate and effectively manage their employees working from home. Research shows how the workforce is experiencing the shift, and what employees need to stay productive and engaged. The future of work after the COVID-19 pandemic will not be the same. Hmph
|
|
|
|
|
The first paragraph says that productivity is down. Is it also suggesting that conducting more video and voice phone calls than usual is an increase in productivity?
(49% of respondents asserted that if they lose their job, their "employer would provide adequate severance terms". This is delusional.)
modified 12-May-20 14:39pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Modules promise a lot: compile-time improvement, isolation of macros, the abolition of header files, and ugly workarounds. "Get yourself together, man"
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: If there is one consensus in the C++ community, it's the following one: we should get rid of the preprocessor macros.
Huh? While preprocessor macros are ugly as heck, and quickly become confusing if nested, how can you accomplish what they do any other way? I wish he had addressed that more deeply, because I seriously doubt such a consensus exists.
|
|
|
|
|
I concur with him except for a few things that would need alternatives. See the last section of the article linked in my .sig.
Edit: This refers to the preprocessor, not modules, which I still need to look at to form an opinion as to whether they're useful or just more pedantic bloat.
|
|
|
|
|
It talks about the advantages of modules but doesn't actually show how they're used. It just criticizes the status quo, which begs the question.
All it says it that modules have far less overhead than headers, that you don't need separate .h's and .cpp's, and that you define what to export. Wonderful, more boilerplate that adds nothing to functionality. It's probably a PITA to convert existing code but does sound like a plus if used from the start.
|
|
|
|
|
if it means not having to recompile the contents of large header flles that are widely #includeded a bazillion times, I'd expect a bigger win than the size of the object files he's griping about would be the speedup in compilation times on larger projects. When you're working on a big project that takes 20 or 30 minutes (or worse) to compile shaving time off the build process seems like a win that'd be worth a lot of time for someone to update the existing code base.
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
|
|
|
|
|
I would assume, perhaps mistakenly, that a decent compiler would compile a header file once and reuse the result when compiling other translation units.
My static analysis tool compiles everything in a single pass after analyzing #include directives. None of this translation unit nonsense. I think this would almost be possible for a true compiler, the preprocessor (which I use sparingly) being the primary exception. But I've got a feeling that I must be overlooking something...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
