|
Android Studio doesn't always fail at importing projects, but when it does, it's 10000 lines of stack trace omgwtfbbq.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Kamen Nik wrote: omgwtfbbq.
Sounds as though you're talking about some righteous barbeque! Yes, I'm hungry.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
|
|
|
|
|
Does that mean he invited us all?
'Cause if so, he's gonna need to get more food...
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Just starting to use Android Studio, how do you like it overall?
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
|
|
|
|
|
It's better than Eclipse, but far worse than Visual Studio. You can still get things done very nicely though.
Especially when it comes to debugging and running your projects on remote devices.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
For emulation am using GenyMotion way better than the one provided with AS, at least with an AMD processor.
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not using any emulators, Android studio is using adb.exe in android-studio\sdk\platform-tools to debug a runtime project.
If you run:
adb.exe connect < IP address of device connected to your network >
then every run or debug first re-installs the app on the device and is executed directly on the device, including step by step debugging.
Pretty nifty.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks I'll give it a shot!
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome thanks for the link!
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
|
|
|
|
|
What are people's preferences for using numbers or letters for a field that indicates the status of something? If something is 'In Progress' you might use the letter 'I' in a Char field or a 1 in a number field for instance. As soon as the record is 'Complete' it get updated to a 'C' or a 2 for instance.
My preference is number, so that they can easily be turned into an enum at the code end. It causes arguments at work like you wouldn't believe....!
Anyone care to make a view?
Julian
|
|
|
|
|
A number, with a related status table holding the number and a text description, so it can be displayed in reports etc.
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
That's how I've always done it as well. However, the place I contract for right now has some status tables and they use the characters with a text description, instead of a number.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Then don't rock the boat. Follow the standard that's in-place. I worked at a place that did that too, which is why I'm even more convinced that numbers are best.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Same here. This tells me exactly why I've always used numeric values.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
That's one of the big advantages of contracting - you see stacks of ways of doing the same thing, some good, some bad & you add the knowledge to your range of experience.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, and I do enjoy contract work. Plenty of exposure to various technologies, environments, concepts, etc.
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Chris - number and related descriptive table.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
This is the wrong forum, but use a number, with a translation table -- that way you can use referential integrity, and an enumeration in code.
Edit: Additionally, numbers allow for a hierarchy of values, so you can fit more information in the values -- not easy to do with single characters.
Edit 2: And globalization.
Edit 3: Single-letter codes lead to the problems that are prevalent with command-line applications that take single-character (case sensitive) options.
E.g. "F" means "file", "f" means "format", and that means we need to use "v" for "filter", and because "V" means "view", we'll need to use "w" for "virtual"...
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
modified 1-Aug-14 12:42pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You can get referential integrity with a status table that uses a single char as PK against other tables using the same as FK, and it's more readable. You only lose the enumeration. And only 230 other possible values for 1 byte of storage.
|
|
|
|
|
Brady Kelly wrote: can get referential integrity
True. But the use of characters may lead to laziness and therefore no such table, whereas it's much more important when using numbers.
Brady Kelly wrote: it's more readable
Not to the user -- who should never see the codes. The computer doesn't care and the developers shouldn't either.
Brady Kelly wrote: 230 other possible values
Don't sell yourself short; you're not limited to alphabetic characters -- a status of ( could be the start of something and ] the end of something else, and Ctrl-C could be the termination of some process. 
Also, when I worked on a system that used characters, it was in Oracle, so we had case sensitivity. 
I could never remember the codes so I always had to look them up anyway.
Where I am now I use numeric codes and keep a print-out of the translations pinned to my wall.
Oh, oh, oh, I just remembered -- one of the applications I maintain a little bit here uses GUIDs for all foreign keys, including things like type and status values! 
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm just thinking back to my SAP days, as a novice developer. There, many codes can and do spill over into user space, and I found it quite easy remembering four letter transaction codes and so on, versus having to choose from a hidden grid or dropdown somewhere in the great unknown.
|
|
|
|
|
Brady Kelly wrote: four letter transaction codes
Hey now, that's just crazy talk.
And it doesn't stop you from having a numeric code, a long description, and a four-letter abbreviation.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
GUIDs for keys - ick!
According to my calculations, I should be able to retire about 5 years after I die.
|
|
|
|
|
I like GUIDs, but not for codes.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
