|
The moment was caught in the middle of a jiffy. (10)
The moment = time
was caught in the = insertion indicator
middle = cen ter [EN]
middle = cen tre [UK]
of a jiffy = definition
Jiffy
International CCC - 12/29/2022
Puzzles are eligible to be posted at 00:00 GMT
Clue remains available for 24 hours.
Winners may become Setters if they choose.
modified 29-Dec-22 19:55pm.
|
|
|
|
|
NANOSECOND?
Informally, that's a "jiffy", but the formal definition is 3E-24 seconds - the time it takes for light to travel one fermi.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the late reply, you were really close. I have never heard of that definition of a Jiffy, where did you get it from?
I was aiming for Centimeter
Edit:
Last two days I've been really busy with some things. This was a CCC 'reject' I wrote ages ago and never posted. The one I am posting today is a reject too. I'll spend some time tonight writing some new puzzles.
modified 29-Dec-22 20:11pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what the original source was (it's been decades since I looked it up), but "jiffy" is used as a time period over here - Wiki lists the Fermi definition: Jiffy (time) - Wikipedia[^]
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Still reading this fantastic book, which continues to be fantastic: Modern Software Engineering[^].
There is so much great content in this book, but this from Chapter 3 really strikes a chord (as someone who evaluated the use of Entity Framework numerous times over 15 years but could never feel comfortable with it).
It's why many of us eschew, "Just use the latest library. It solves all your problems."
Quote: We talk a lot about change in our industry. We get excited about new technologies and new products, but do these changes really “move the dial” on software development? Many of the changes that exercise us don’t seem to make as much difference as we sometimes seem to think that they will.
My favorite example of this was demonstrated in a lovely conference presentation by “Christin Gorman.”1 In it, Christin demonstrates that when using the then popular open source object relational mapping library Hibernate, it was actually more code to write than the equivalent behavior written in SQL, subjectively at least; the SQL was also easier to understand. Christin goes on to amusingly contrast software development with making cakes. Do you make your cake with a cake mix or choose fresh ingredients and make it from scratch?
|
|
|
|
|
Correct.
I don't use those tools. And I hand-craft all of my SQL.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here...
I have kept very much abreast of all the latest software developments but ave found none to be of much benefit.
Most seem to just add a lot of complexity while not really providing any real advantage.
Probably the best advancement has been the List(T) implementation. Internally it adds efficiency and provides basically the same capabilities as an ArrayList.
However, out of habit, I still use ArrayLists since what I use them for is small sets of data where the internal efficiencies make very little difference.
All in all, I still use the basic language constructs of C# and VB.NET as I have always used them, and my code works just fine.
Never understood all the superfluous language additions over the years. They seem to don nothing but make the languages harder to understand...
Steve Naidamast
Sr. Software Engineer
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
Most libraries are rubbish.
Some are a gems.
Seldomly, you will find a diamond[^].
In 2014, we moved our 50 man-year legacy VB6 desktop app to a low code framework, in about 2 man-year.
Our new app looks modern, up-to-date, has a wide range of new features, is multiplatform (Web, Mobile and Desktop), extremely configurable, even at runtime, looks uniform, has less bugs, displays dashboards with graphics, extendable and designable reports, even at runtime, for every view, etc., etc., etc., you name it, there it is.
The app maps around 600 DB tables, some with hundreds of millions of records.
All the SQL commands are built dynamically, via an ORM (XPO).
Since then, I have written SQLs marginally only, basically to adjust a few old database design to todays paradigms.
The new app is faster than its equivalent written in the previous good old hand written SQLs technology in VB6.
Todays' source code is entirely C#.
I have never been more happy to go to work since.
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting...
I see that there is a $2,199 cost associated.
Is this a development framework? Meaning...Can I generate 100s of apps for the one-time cost and those apps run standalone (can be deployed "normally") for many years without paying more?
Or is this some kind of runtime I have to pay for to run each individual app?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Just a potential warning...
The comment to which you are responding to is based on a legacy system with a large persisted data set already in place which was hand-crafted over time using SQL. So either someone(s) either knew how to handle that data from the beginning or they learned over time.
Then they took a tool and used it to implement the same thing.
Without a background both in databases and in sizing a market attempting to use a tool to replace that knowledge might not end up well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
With a one-time subscription[^], a dev can generate as many apps and those apps run standalone.
A support center[^] with answers to your most questions.
Free support forever, with a working solution to your specific question in usually less than one day.
There are updates around every month, with new features for free during 12 months.
Forever free updates on the versions I own, with bug corrections and security updates.
Yearly renewal at 990 $
There are multi-user discounts.
Source code.
DevExpress XAF YouTube tutorials[^]
|
|
|
|
|
This feels like a nice kit that a person could pay for then use to run a consulting business on.
Seems like (if the customer had their data) you could build quick prototypes / running solutions to get them a fast CRUD UI. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
This artificial promoting of ET is beyond annoying. If someone refuses to grasp modern SQL/DB concepts and take advantage of them, it's okay, let him craft his entities. But what really grinds my gears is the Microsoft keep pushing on developers this rotten carcass of dead-born "technology".
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. There are some things I would actually use Entity Framework for -- especially related to quick prototyping & testing some ideas. As a matter of fact, I wish I was better at using it for that.
But after that I would in most cases build a kind of Repository pattern for my entities and write the SQL myself.
|
|
|
|
|
What's worse is the Microsoft Entity Framework uses SQL calls that cannot be optimized by the query optimizer.
|
|
|
|
|
That's because you're not using stored procs when you should.
EF RUNS ON THE CLIENT.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Stored Procedures are evil - they tie your work to a particular DBMS vendor, for a start. That's exactly what they are so loved by those vendors!
|
|
|
|
|
Only if you write NON-ANSI SQL and don't understand database performance and security ... and who does that?
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
Yes but... Microsoft have T-SQL and Oracle have their Pl/SQL (for example) and other database systems have their own equivalents, all of which have little in common. Using Stored procs for data queries using strict ANSI-SQL may be one thing, but most stored procs I have seen use the much more proprietary T-SQL or Pl/ SQL (etc) to move complex data-related logic as close to the database metal as possible - and that locks you in.
A few stored procedures are not a big deal to migrate to another DBMS, but any decent sized database application could have several hundred stored procedures (they tend to become habitual), and that makes migrating to a different dbms an expensive proposition, which is exactly the position the vendors want to get you in.
|
|
|
|
|
haughtonomous wrote: and that makes migrating to a different dbms an expensive proposition
Never seen a cheap one. Not ever. And I have done this multiple times.
I have seen one system written from scratch which was intended to be database agnostic. It was a product which when delivered was more than 10 times too slow to actually meet the business requirements. And even with two dedicated employees of that company and a dedicated employee of the target company when I left the company (target) it was still 4 times too slow. They were attempting to adjust it for about two months. Note that the performance requirement was a hard limit as it involved calculating financial data that had to be processed within a fixed window.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: Only if you write NON-ANSI SQL
Huh?
Last time I checked there is no 'ANSI' specification for stored procedures. What exactly is your source for that?
Gerry Schmitz wrote: don't understand database performance and security
I have written large systems. Multiple database vendors. And I have never seen a 'standard' that allows you to generically code for performance. You can impact performance at the enterprise level both by architecture and requirements but tuning for performance at the database level depend on the database.
|
|
|
|
|
In 20 plus years of development, I've never had a boss say, change to a different database platform. I feel like this is an argument for the sake of arguing instead of adding actual software value. Using stored procs and embracing a vendor's specific optimizations makes a platform faster.
If we expand the idea, do you also eschew cloud computing because it creates vendor lock in?
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Trust me, it happens more often than you think. Oracle to SQL Server? Significant cost savings. Either of those to Postgres or similar FOSS dbms systems? Again tempting reduction in licence fees. The obstacle? The cost of overcoming that vendor lock in.
If you've never come up against this, you're lucky.
No, I don't eschew cloud computing for that reason. With modern containerisation that's nothing like the same problem.
"It's never happened to me" doesn't mean it never happens. I've never been shot in the head, but it obviously does happen. So far I've been lucky but I still try to avoid inviting it.
|
|
|
|
|
A twenty year career is quite short. Keep going.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
