|
I sometimes use Google Maps.
Also, Android tracks the hell out of you. Shutting that crap off isn't trivial and sometimes breaks things that shouldn't break. (OTOH, I don't really care. Google's algorithms likely declare me a very boring person and ignore me.)
|
|
|
|
|
In this version, we are highlighting changes in the C++ Connection Manager, .NET Productivity, Git Productivity, and Local Process with Kubernetes. Needs more versioning. How about, "Left-handed edition" at the end?
Maybe a build number, complete with a branch commit ID?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: "Left-handed edition"
That is a genius idea! 
|
|
|
|
|
The international team of scientists behind the breakthrough believe that molecules like the ones they have discovered could offer information density of around 250 terabits per square inch—which is around 100 times the storage density of current hard drives. You just need a handy scanning tunneling microscope (as most households now have)
|
|
|
|
|
What the elephant would you need that memory for?
|
|
|
|
|
[Joke]
Windows 12? GTA VIII? Destiny 3?
[/Joke]
More seriously... I can ensure you, there would be people filling it (with relevant data or not is another question)
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.
|
|
|
|
|
But elephants have got that amount of memory already, haven't they?
|
|
|
|
|
With their weight of some 4 tons, they are too heavy for most data centers, let alone a mobile device.
Oh sanctissimi Wilhelmus, Theodorus, et Fredericus!
|
|
|
|
|
There are not too heavy elephants, only not angry enough hamsters   
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.
|
|
|
|
|
So you can write atrociously slow programs and have still perform well enough
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's already the norm, and even worse when it comes to memory and disk usage.
|
|
|
|
|
Another quest for money and (government) investment, without any practical application, except a few vague promises.
Selling snake oil should not be acceptable in this age.
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 latest State of Software Quality survey from continuous reliability company OverOps shows that 70 percent of respondents say quality is paramount and they would rather delay the product roadmap than risk a critical error impacting their users. So that's 30% of developers I don't want to work with
Although it does explain a lot of recent news items
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: So that's 30% of developers I don't want to work with
Although it does explain a lot of recent news items
I was having more the impression that those 2 statistics are the other way around.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
On the serious side: Too many academic style developers have no idea about what the customer really needs. They insist on absolutely everything being toally perfect according to every academic principle ever thought up. The customer cries for "something that solves my problem - now!", but the academic developer says "We are not going to give you that even if we could, because that solution will lack perfectness according to some academic disciplines!"
I have worked with some developers of that class. And argued with a lot of that class. What made IBM more or less supreme in some markets in the 1960s-70s is not that they provided perfect solutions, but provided solutions that were good enough, and that with a reasonable margin. Microsoft has repeated that: They have, in a number of market segments, been big for the last 20-30 years not because they are perfect, but good enough (once more: with a reasonable margin). A major part of the critisism against MS (as it was against IBM) is that they are far from perfect. Which is true. By some criteria, Linux is closer to the perfect ... but unable to provide to the non-programmer user what solves his problem now (that is, without having to wait for some other successful windows application to clone).
Don't let the best block the road for the good. But we too often do. We do not listen to what the customers really need but let our own ideas of perfection stand in the way of what would solve the user's problem. To say it bluntly: Having to restart your machine is a far more essential problem to developers than to users! (I restart my car whenever I manage to kill the engine. As long as no expert car driver is sitting in the passenger seat shaking his head, it doesn't bother me to turn the ignition key for half a second. .. I have a somewhat problematic driveway for backing up into.)
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: Microsoft has had repeated that:
I give you Windows 10 is not really that bad (ignoring the messy updates) but current Microsoft is far behind from what it was.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Most managers don't, so doesn't matter much what devs want. Security is a non-issue nor is quality when compared to meeting the deadline and the promises of sales.
We want to deliver secure and tested. Much software in the wild isn't.
Don't blame us. And stop wasting money on "studies" for the why; it is a budget/time issue, and most of them prefer sub-standard results, and they get those, as deserved.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a 30\70 split for managers too....
|
|
|
|
|
And yet most of us manage to deliver low quality software late....
|
|
|
|
|
How can I get my manager to read this, and actually believe it? I've been trying to get him to understand quality over quantity for a long time. But his priority is all about pleasing the people at the top.
"...JavaScript could teach Dyson how to suck." -- Nagy Vilmos
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft's C# programming language climbed a year-over-year notch on the TIOBE Index, which measures popularity among developers. "Or art thou base, common and popular?"
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is how those Python, Javascript, Tcl, ... are going to handle all those error messages from the compiler about type mismatch, undefined symbols and all the other compile time stuff, if C# takes over.
Maybe they won't be able to handle all those pesky compile time warnings. Maybe they will simply reject to develop code where you have to relate to syntax errors before the code ships to the customer.
You can't argue it: Wasting resources on handling errors in an error handling routine for an error that never will occur is a waste, no matter how you look at it. So what is the gain in having a compiler force us to worry about it?
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're missing the point of type checking. The entire reasoning is that it makes certain classes of error possible to pick up during compilation, so you don't need to write handling code for those classes of errors, as the compiler has ensured they can never occur at runtime.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
The new theory is based on the observation that more galaxies are spinning counterclockwise than clockwise, New Scientist reports, whereas previous models expected a balance between the two directions. Maybe that explains why I'm dizzy
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder: In the mirror anti-universe, would the majority of the galaxies spin clockwise?
Maybe the clocks are mirrored as well... How does that affect the direction of rotation?
Or, if we turn the clocks upside down?
Or even worse: What if we are using digigal clocks?
(like Jeff Dunham: Very special Christmas special[^] at around 5:40 - but watch it from around 2:20 to get the full story!
(I am happy not to be the daughter of Jeff Dunham...)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
