|
|
Well done:
Its appropriate - definition
I hear - sounds like
Queen - Bee
trying on clothes - fitting
|
|
|
|
|
Based on appropriate and trying on clothes. I didn't figure out the sounds like the Queen bit. E? ER? But the guess just fit. 
|
|
|
|
|
Message on MS Teams this morning, telling us that the Leadership team had emailed us - about the ongoing problems we are having with Outlook/Exchange. Yes, they emailed us about emails not working!  I can see why they are leaders!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they meant that they're having problems with the outlook for the company, but management won't be exchanged because they like their paycheck too much.
These problems are ongoing and they decided to send a Teams message about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they should not have said anything at all.
|
|
|
|
|
It's just another sign that the End Times are fast approaching. It is long past time, in their opinion, that you repent of your ways!
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I just got done with weeks of code trying to do something I wasn't sure I'd be able to do.
To be honest, if my head wasn't a mess it would have taken me a few days, but that's another thing entirely.
But at first I wasn't even sure C++ was going to be able to do what I was going to ask it to do. It turns out, it could, as long as I accepted certain limits in terms of my graphics pixel sizes and such.
Anyway, do you know what this is? (see figure below)
This is victory.
This is my graphics library rendering and blting arbitrary bitmaps, to arbitrary pixel formats, in this case 2 bit grayscale mapped to "ascii art" that started as 24-bit RGB. But my pixel formats can be virtually anything you want. Any color model you can imagine. Any bit depth up to 64 bits. Any number of channels (but the total must be less than or equal to 64 bits) - RGB, Y'UV, YbCbCr, grayscale, monochrome, whatever, even ones i haven't defined.
This is satisfaction.
This is me taking an elephanting break.
###############
#. . . . . . .#
# . . . . . . #
#. .#
# . %%%%%%% . #
#. %%%%%%% .#
# . %%%%%%% . #
#. %%%%%%% .#
# . %%%%%%% . #
#. %%%%%%% .#
# . %%%%%%% . #
#. .#
# . . . . . . #
#. . . . . . .#
###############
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Congratulations. Impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
thanks. i'll prepare an article when I'm ready. I have more legwork to do but the code is functional so far, so I'm good.
I need to add Y'UV and YbCbCr to RGB conversions next but I don't need to deal with it right at the moment. It's something to do as an alternative to getting bored. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Nope - Always feels like I'm 6 feet under... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Bummer. I think for me it depends if I'm working on my own stuff or someone else's
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
That's true. When I work on my own stuff, I have fun... 
Otherwise it's just something that has to be done...
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: This is satisfaction.
This is me taking an elephanting break.
The best breaks are the well deserved ones.
Enjoy your time.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Very cool!
As to your subject line question, I tend to experience that even if I'm exhausted after a long coding stint, it's hard to climb out of the rut, or canyon. There's always "one more thing" as well as the psychological difficulty of stopping. It's a strange sensation. Sleep helps - the human "reboot."
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: as well as the psychological difficulty of stopping
I feel this so hard. Even after sleep. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I've known that feeling, but to me the risk is, as I feel I'm coming up for air, this is when I start to ease off and let the small things that I know need to be fixed fall through the cracks. I know the worst is done, so I can't be bothered with the minor stuff anymore...and in the end they never get fixed.
This is why every once in a while, even though I know I should be working on bigger/more important features, I'll take the time anyway (say, on a Friday afternoon) to fix the smaller things as I know otherwise they'll never be fixed, even if I find myself with all the time in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
At least when it comes to my own projects I often shoot myself in the foot periodically by building a mountain of code before testing it (sometimes before compiling it) and then I *must* go back and fix.
And usually I get to the point where there are other big things dependent on the little things working correctly so I fix them.
This technique really shouldn't work, but it more or less does.
When I'm coding for others, it's actual work, and I treat it like work, so my habits are different.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I've been there often, writing or rewriting a ton of code without doing interim tests, because who wants to bother with incremental changes that will only be thrown away later anyway? So in the end, there's the remorse of long debugging sessions.
But different habits when doing "real work" isn't something that I can particularly relate to. I used to inspect my changes far more carefully, but that was because setting up a test environment was so painful that often I didn't bother. 
|
|
|
|
|
Preferably in a work environment, there are standards in terms of checking in + unit testing
If there's not, and I'm in a lead role (which TBH I have been for maybe two decades whenever I'd doing this stuff) I'll try to implement those things, such that our build process enforces it.
Otherwise I'm hopeless because everything you wrote is relatable content, and then some.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Program managers' nightmare, or, devs' wet-dream ? [^]Quote: Our experiments revealed that asking “What can I add?” appears to be a cognitive default. It’s a shortcut that people use when, in the phrase popularized by the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, they’re “thinking fast.” When we used some tried-and-true methods to get people “thinking slow,” we found that they were more likely to ask “What can I add or subtract?”
Reminds me of the "feature creep" in Visual Studio, and C#, and, of the dev-flesh eating bacterial plague of web frameworks.
If only Dorothy could say to Toto: "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose," instead of: [^]
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
I was just telling a friend the other day that I'm not impressed by complicated solutions to complicated problems.
I said I wrote a GLR parser, but after I was done it was like "meh"
The best solutions are simple.
The hardest to come up with solutions are simple.
The reason I know I'm not the smartest person in the room, is I very often do not come up with the simplest solution.
This is something I try to impress on people I'm teaching to code.
Your comment reminded me of that. Less is more. Simpler is smarter. Anyone can make a Rube Goldberg contraption that does a complicated task. It's hard to make a thing that does that same task simply, with elegance and finesse.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: The reason I know I'm not the smartest person in the room, is I very often do not come up with the simplest solution.
I'd say a habit of under-estimating one's own intelligence is a possible sign of intelligence (see Dunning-Kruger effect [^])
And, imho, it is often the case that working through a complex attempt at a solution, possibly recognizing the level of complexity has become unmanageable, non-performant, can lead to the "aha-satori" moment when the simpler strategy is salient.
I am absolutely certain you are very intelligent, and gifted 
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
modified 16-Apr-21 1:32am.
|
|
|
|
|
Other people seem more certain of my intelligence than I am but that's okay. I just feel "regular". I'm always "normal" to me, - the crass hegemony of the mind I suppose.
At the end of the day, simplicity and elegance are the hallmark of exceptional code. I *have* written code like that at points - as I'm sure so many of us have, but usually I settle for less.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I just feel "regular".
That's OK - those around your (dare I say us?) are decaying rapidly enough that it shows.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
