|
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar wrote: subsede
Were you trying to tell subside? My concern is that even if I vote a spam message a 1, I still would like to report to an admin about the same by clicking on the "report spam" link, which we are not able to do now. Getting it now?
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
ப்ரம்மா
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting a post automatically gives it a 1 vote too.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Dunn wrote: Reporting a post automatically gives it a 1 vote too.
Wow! I didn't know that. Thanks a lot Mike. *satisfaction*
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero
ப்ரம்மா
|
|
|
|
|
This[^] article appears to be 404.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I highly appreciate your site and regularly experiment code from the articles. A question arises: why don't you suggest a specific rule to document code so it can be much easy to understand and reuse? It should be nice if a doc (chm?) were associated to every revised article code.
STroiani
|
|
|
|
|
STroiani wrote: why don't you suggest a specific rule to document code so it can be much easy to understand and reuse? It should be nice if a doc (chm?) were associated to every revised article code.
That would be nice, but it is hard enough to get some people to stick within the existing article posting guidelines - how much more effort it would be to get them to document their code correctly as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree. I'm a developer so I know how hard is to make (good) SW doc. But a first simple step can be trying to figure out what can be made about communication of design ideas and implementation present in the code.
For a long time I used Doxygen; due to my limits I simply can't guarantee that code commenting is adeguate to code meaning. Moreover, too much comments make source code very heavy to read. So what?
I wish something separated from the code that quickly can offer a picture of the code structure, explain the code items and outline the code (execution) paths.
Do you know something already exists? What do you think about?
|
|
|
|
|
Documentation in the form of chm, doxygen or any other similar means is unwarrented for the type of projects/articles shared on this site. We are already provided with a html page dedicated to the code in question, this page 'should' contain all the information a developer requires. In the case that it does not, I couldn't imagine downloading a seperate article/introduction to the code would make any difference.
In my opinion, documentation files are only warrented with larger projects and projects which tend to be updated frequently. This type of project would not be shared on a site like this, but rather have a dedicated website which is much more tuned towards development, bugfinding and user feedback. A site like sourceforge.
It would however be nice if article submitters would comment their code, especially the header files, in a more developer friendly manner.
Slightly off topic, would it be possible for the CP website to intergrate a zip viewer? This way a user could peek at the contents of a zip file before downloading. I understand this comes with a risk, but surely all zips are scanned for viruses before being linked in a page.
|
|
|
|
|
We have guidelines[^] and a template but they are not followed 100%.
CHM defeats the purpose of what we have here and authors do not typically have the time, resources or enhusiasm to go to the trouble of creating CHMs or PDFs or whatever. We have HTML. It seems to work pretty well so far 
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Is there any chance of getting an rss feed for all the forums, not just the lounge?
Thanks
ChrisB
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to post a series of articles (all at the same time, and hopefully before the end of the year)) that involve several languages and frameworks, but I don't want them scattered all of over the site when the editors "edit" them because they won't make sense if they aren't together. Can one of the editors tell me where I should put such a series of articles?
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
If you can let me know what the articles are about then I could have a think about the best way to do this.
Email me offline.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Done.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe given my description, the best fit with existing sections would be "Diaries, fun stuff and bits that don't fit elsewhere".
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
How does one e-mail someone offline?
|
|
|
|
|
In this context, offline means not using the forum and is redundant with email me.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
Pigeons. The trick is, you gotta train an owl to follow along and keep 'em moving, as they like to go online now and then when they happen upon power transmission cabling...
Presumably, Chris is trying to reduce the amount of email he receives each day.
|
|
|
|
|
"Offline": you know, meaning not actually plugged directly into CodeProject. :P
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Kinda like being plugged into the Matrix? 
Cheers,
Vikram.
"Life isn't fair, and the world is full of unscrupulous characters. There are things worth fighting for, killing for and dying for, but it's a really small list. Chalk it up to experience, let it go, and move on to the next positive experience in your life." - Christopher Duncan.
|
|
|
|
|
A suggestion that I got from readers is to put links at the end of each article that point to the previous/next articles in the series. You can see them in my shell extension and WTL articles (clickety[^])
|
|
|
|
|
I think all of your 10-part tutorial articles on WTL should be lumped together in the article list and maybe even given their own section. But that's just me...
I'm in the middle of the WTL portion of my article series, and think your stuff is great.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
At the top of each forum there is a search box with a drop down choice for either "articles" or "author". Would it be possible to extend this by adding the article categories there ie ( "MFC/C++", "Web Development"... ). The would make it easier for users to find a more suitable article and reduce your servers bandwidth.
|
|
|
|
|
WalderMort wrote: Would it be possible to extend this by adding the article categories there ie ( "MFC/C++", "Web Development"... ).
To the right of the 'GO!' button is 'Advanced Search' with the options you seek. 
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
|
|
|
|
|
The advanced search is not what I am suggesting. Sure if I want to find an article catered to what I am looking for, the the advanced search is great, but it still involves opening a new page before being able to search.
I am suggesting adding the article topics, or more precisly the type of code. For example, type "hashing algorithm" inot the search, you will confronted with VB, C++ and C# code, among others. Lets hazard a guess at the average page size on CP at 300k. As it stands now 300k to open 'advanced search' plus 300k to get a page full of data; 200k wasted by not using advanced leaving you with 100k, multiply that by 3.
Either way between 300 and 600k is being wasted on every search. Not such a big deal for users, but you multiply that by the number of searches each day. Thats how much bandwidth the server is wasting.
It would also be nice to search the forums from the same. If I'm reading an article see something I'm not sure about, I like to search the forums for a possible answer. As it stands, a forum needs to opened before having access to the "search forums" link. Again, wasted bandwidth.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
