|
Maybe Microsoft should do away with the idea of code being stored in "text" files and consider a xml style.
The advantages would be everyone can format code any which way they like and the actual code itself is just a big block of code.
And commenting would only be allowed in ONE style so it's not like // random /* occurances ********* of weird */ /// styles... Just have it all render as some graphical primitive, like a sticky-note colored rectangle with text?.
Other advantages would be "smart" code files... like they can preserve edit history much like a photoshop .psd file can.
Disadvantage is printing will be a area of concern... but not so much if printing of code is no longer practiced.
Another advantage is the ability to embed any type of document in-line with code as a advanced form of comment/information... like having PICTURES and PDF files and WEBPAGES as small resizable elements right their above the function that is based on their information.
If the future is 3D representation of files and code then Ms better jump on this right away :P
|
|
|
|
|
The yes category did not fit my reasoning either but the second was closer to the first.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Not every member of the team has the same monitor size as I do, so limiting the width makes no sense. There will always be colleagues that have bigger monitors than mine. And everybody upgrades the monitor once in a while.
And since I like to see the entire line of code, Word Wrap solves the issue. There is never code that is hidden on the right side, because of the horizontal scroll, so I never wonder why the application doesn't perform how I want it to.
|
|
|
|
|
True, but word wrap offends my sense of geometry and proportion. A line should be a line not a rectangle after all. I bought a 30" Dell Monitor to get over the problem, which is cool because not only can you fit a massive line of code on it, it also makes you feel like a God. Recommended to all.
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Hope its a flat screen. Or if its a tube, they included free sunscreen.
|
|
|
|
|
And a small crane to pick it up on the desk.
|
|
|
|
|
Mihai Maerean wrote: Not every member of the team has the same monitor size
That's exactly why the team needs to set a limit.
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't flaunt your monitor size by extending the lines too long, how will you know your ePenis is bigger than theirs? You just don't seem to know a thing about programming. 
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
|
|
|
|
|
What I lack in girth I make for in length.
|
|
|
|
|
Is that a 30" monitor in your pocket, or do you just buy really big, squared pants?
private void geekLove(char[] condom) {
if (condom == null || condom.length < 5) return;
int sex = 0;
do {
thrust();
Thread.sleep(1000);
sex++;
} while (sex < 10)
pay();
return;
}
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I'd have used a for-loop rather than a do-while. A lot more conventional. Also, your return statement is redundant. 
Regards,
Rob Philpott.
|
|
|
|
|
Initially it was a for loop, but that seemed too detached. A statement that says "do" seemed much more appropriate for the theme. Plus, it gives the impression that it may continue for a long time (until you see the conditional at the end), whereas a for loop spells out an exact number of steps up front. So I changed it.
At first I had the function set to int, so I needed a return statement. Then I thought void would better express the emotional investment of geekLove, as far as this context was concerned. The "return" then emphasized that, once the money was paid, it was time to leave.
And I grossly over-analyzed this when I wrote it. Did I mention that I'm a geek?
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
|
|
|
|
|
Naruki wrote: And I grossly over-analyzed this when I wrote it.
Well, you nailed the gross part... 
-------------------------
Spiffdog Design
It's ok.. he's no ordinary dog...
|
|
|
|
|
Nah make it like a game loop
while(1)
{
...
} ///lol
|
|
|
|
|
I never thought about it like that!
|
|
|
|
|
You should write this up in javascript so it executes slower!
|
|
|
|
|
It is very useful to limit the length and width at a 16:9 ratio, so that it looks nice on modern TV sets. 
|
|
|
|
|
You mean when it winds up on the evening news for crashing an airliner or something? 
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, this sentence have no sense at all. 
'Cause, this is aspect ratio, and it can be anything given the same width.
...Unless you try to fit your code on exactly one screen. But this is really unpractical to break your code so that every part would fit on one page.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a rebel.
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
|
|
|
|
|
The cinematic quality and suspense for coding really isn't that good though. What is coming up next?.?.?.? OMG AN IF STATEMENT.
Regards,
Thomas Stockwell
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
Visit my Blog
|
|
|
|
|
After perusing the posts/answers in this forum, I can realistically conclude that NONE of you know how many columns a Hollerith card contained nor do you know why a standard width for paper is 8.5 inches. You also may not be familiar with non-proportional fonts since Courier is passe' now. Those of us in the "coding" profession for more than twenty years had our styles dictated by the width of a sheet of fanfold paper in a thingy called a "line printer". Some of you may have seen one of these on display in the Smithsonian and not even recognized it as a printer. AH, for the good old days...amber 12" crt monitors, 320 x 200 graphics, card punch machines(anyone know what an 029 control card did?) and none of these gooey things that stick to your screen.
Been doin' this for too darn long! 
|
|
|
|
|
TomS45 wrote: how many columns a Hollerith card contained
You got me there, never used one, I was raised on DEC equipment in the 1980s.
My father brought some home from work once (in the 1970s), but didn't explain them.
TomS45 wrote: a sheet of fanfold paper
Wide or narrow?
You didn't mention "hard copy terminals"[^], a printer with a keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
... why standard US (as opposed to the rest of the world) paper width is 8.5 inches. Mainly because nobody knows, and you certainly aren't nobody.
The best theory indicates that the adoption of the standard probably predates you, old as you may be. But Reagan's administration made it official for all government use.
Hey, who knew Reagan actually did something useful (if still backwards by world standards)?
Don't let my name fool you. That's my job.
|
|
|
|
|
Naruki wrote: Reagan actually did something
I though he was out of the loop on that.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
