|
Michael Martin wrote: Too many letters for scrotum.
Thankfully, yes.
Is there any particular reason why the answer might have been "SCROTUM"? It isn't, in case you were wondering.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Thankfully, yes.
Is there any particular reason why the answer might have been "SCROTUM"? It isn't, in case you were wondering.
I've never come close to knowing the answer to one, so when I do check I look for 7 letters and then answer scrotum. Only been 7 letters the one time of the few I have checked, wasn't scrotum then either.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Well ... it's definitely 9 letters (I checked), so SCROTUM wouldn't have worked at all.
TESTICLES would be the right length - but it would also have been the wrong answer in case you were tempted to try it. 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Too hard for a Monday 
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
They are all hard until you get the answer! 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
And that's all she said. 
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
Now now 
We can’t stop here, this is bat country - Hunter S Thompson RIP
|
|
|
|
|
I love adopting new tech, jumping in early and spending weeks getting a handle on some new framework, tool set, paradigm or methodology. NOT
I loathe the current web stack with it's myriad of javascript frameworks and have refused to have anything to do with it for LOB work.
So I stumbled across the new Blazor framework from Microsoft, the presentation made it look simple, based in c#, build in VS and I don't need to deal with javascript to any great degree.
However having waited 2 years for Silverlight to stabilise and then doing another 3-4 years of development only to have add in support withdrawn from browsers I not enamoured with getting into another web framework.
Is there any confidence this framework will become accepted.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: Is there any confidence this framework will become accepted.
I personally find the framework very interesting. I think Blazor is going to be incredibly a hit and that's because I see WebAssembly as actually superseding JavaScript. Sure, JavaScript and it's frameworks aren't going anywhere, but why would you teach a new programmer JavaScript when you can just teach them C#, Python, etc.. and have them work with simpler tools in a more performant environment?
That being said.. Blazor is still on it's experimental stage and we can't guarantee anything until it will be officially released.
|
|
|
|
|
My disgust with the current web stack is unbounded, after the elegance of Silverlight and it's demise I walked away from web development completely, concentration on WPF - I like xaml binding.
So the attraction of a single development platform is very attractive. I just might devote some time to Blazor.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Having been burnt in the past by poorly implemented (or withdrawn a la Silverlight) shiny new stacks/libraries/frameworks, I tend to treat the latest new stuff with caution. I now try to do as much as possible using only the standards that all browsers support. This makes my apps look pedestrian, but I don't have to maintain them as often.
It helps that my "clients" are tech types internal to the company. They are also less enamoured of the latest "shiny shiny" than the marketing types. 
IOW, you may not want to use it, but I predict that your clients/manager/marketing staff will insist that you do. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: but I predict that your clients/manager/marketing staff will insist that you do
Crap they LOVE shiny and the boss has an ear attuned to the latest and not so greatest. Although they are moving steadily away from MS products, python is the current flavour.
I want this for personal and possibly SME solutions from now on and there is no current project to work on so exploring is on the cards.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: Crap they LOVE shiny and the boss has an ear attuned to the latest and not so greatest. Although they are moving steadily away from MS products, python is the current flavour.
Then you'll want to introduce them to this[^], they will love it.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
No framework is guaranteed to succeed especially uSoft.
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
For as regularly as web frameworks go from the hot new shiny to a reviled legacy cancer with zero forward support aren't you stuck on the try new thing ... fall in love ... forced to replace it treadmill no matter what you do?
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
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: I loathe the current web stack with it's myriad of javascript frameworks and have refused to have anything to do with it for LOB work.
Amen! Currently in a disagreement with a (mostly non-coding) business partner over the direction of one of our core LOB desktop apps. I want it to stay desktop, but she is convinced that it should 'go to the cloud' as a web application. 
Her reasons are 'Everyone else is doing it' and 'our customers expect it'.
My arguments against a cloud-based web app are:
0: it currently costs us $0 for a customer to download, install, setup, and use the product.
1: the majority of our customers are not interested in a cloud based solution due to local security policies.
2: the app in question relies heavily on imports from local sources. (direct connections to other vendor's databases, spreadsheets, textfiles, etc.) I've already seen what happens when a customer decides to move one or more of their key LOB apps to the cloud...Let's just call it 'data interruptus'...systems that used to share/feed/pull data from one another aren't talking anymore.
3: responsibility for the data(base). Simple...I don't want it. I'm quite happy with letting the customer's IT department do what they are being paid to do.
4: as for re-writing the desktop app to a web app, I only have two words. session timeout
So far, she is unconvinced.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
don't be so technical, tell her how much it will cost (including all those database connections and ongoing work), how long it will take to build, then ask her who is paying for it.
don't forget managers think technical arguments are just IT people being lazy - after all anything is possible, but when money is involved it's their job to justify it to their bosses.
This internet thing is amazing! Letting people use it: worst idea ever!
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. Support for .Net 2.0. Let's all take 5 giant steps back in time.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should remain experimental.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
.net CORE 2.0. BIG difference!
As a side note I would not ask if Blazor is the new Silverlight. It's a totally different thing. Blazor is based on web standards, WebAssembly being the most important, whereas Silverlight was a proprietary browser plugin.
The question is also a lot broader than Blazor, since it's really WebAssembly that is the interesting thing here. Blazor is just a framework to enable C# developers to utilize the power of webassembly.
So yes, I strongly believe WebAssembly is the future. Especially for LOB applications. Public facing websites will probably be running with javascript for years to come, but real applications will be WebAssembly.
|
|
|
|
|
I read that it used Mono - that is *NOT* .Net Core.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trygve333 wrote: Another interesting discussion here
It's really not that interesting.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Silverlight was a plugin. Blazor compiles to native web. Huge difference.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
